GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY
CENTRAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL
LIBRARY
Call No._3A5L6 K 4jCL
u.>
,T4! S OQK STORE,
i iJ-X. M. Jimputkf
Nm> Delhi,
s >JPh<jn&
4
THE STRUCTURE
OF THE
OTTOMAN DYNASTY
Oxford University Press ; Amen House , London E.C.4
GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON
BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI CAPE TOWN IBADAN
Geoffrey Cumberlege , Publisher to the University
THE STRUCTURE
OF THE
OTTOMAN DYNASTY
BY
A. D. ALDERSON
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
i95 6
CENTRAL ARCHAEOLCr ,r * '
library, new dl. .. v
Aoo. No . /57. 2.7*-.. .
Ua-co
< Liii No. ... .X .7. j.;
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
TO
ROLAND P. SUTTON
WHO FIRST TAUGHT ME
ABOUT THE PALACE
ON THE GOLDEN HORN
PREFACE
In the pages of this book an attempt has been made to present the
genealogy of the Ottoman Dynasty in as detailed a manner as possible
and to establish the principles which governed the mutual relations of
its various members. It is a study which has been prolonged by con-
tinual interruptions and which, because of inherent limitations can
never be complete; but it is felt that sufficient progress has been
made to justify publication. The way in which it came to be written
is told in the Introduction. Here I would like to set out the names
of those who, in many different ways, have helped in its writing.
My first debt is to the late Dr. J. Kingsley Birge who was always
ready with advice and encouragement. Then Professor Halil
Inalcik and Dr. Aurel Decei have kindly read the proofs and made
valuable suggestions. Bay Haluk Sehsuvaroglu, director of the Top-
Kapi Sarayi Miizesi, has helped me in the checking of many names
and dates. Bay Faik Re§it Unat very kindly gave me permission to
make use of one of his maps, while my colleague Bay Haydar Edis-
kun has readily answered my repeated inquiries as to the spelling of
Turkish names. None of these people must, however, be held re-
sponsible for any mistakes there may be.
My thanks are also due to the Librarians of the French Institute
of Archaeology, the American Bible House and Robert College, all
in Istanbul, and of the University Library of Cambridge, for the
many facilities for study. Lastly my thanks must go to the staff of
the Clarendon Press for their kindly advice and co-operation in deal-
ing with a very awkward manuscript — a task often rendered more
difficult by distance.
In conclusion, I would like to repeat the words of a great prede-
cessor, Stanley Lane-Poole: Tn a work abounding in names and
figures it would be strange if misprints and mistakes did not
occur. I shall be grateful to any scholar who will convict me of error ;
for those who “serve tables” know the danger and annoyance of
even slight inaccuracy/
A. D. A.
College St. Michel , Istanbul
31 December igM
CONTENTS
PREFACE vii
LIST OF TABLES xi
LIST OF MAPS xii
INTRODUCTION xiii
I. ORIGINS I
II. SUCCESSION 4
III. THE PRINCELY GOVERNORATES 17
IV. THE LAW OF FRATRICIDE 25
V. THE ‘KAFES’ 32
vi. accessions 37
VII. REGENCIES 46
VIII. REBELLIONS AND PRETENDERS 49
IX. ABDICATIONS 54
X. DEPOSITIONS 59
XI. THE HAREM 77
XII. MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE 85
XIII. BIRTHS AND CIRCUMCISIONS IOI
XIV. DEATHS AND FUNERALS 107
XV. TITLES USED BY THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY III
XVI. NAMES USED BY THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY 121
XVII. TRADES OF THE SULTANS 123
XVIII. THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY AND THE ‘hAC* 125
X
CONTENTS
BIBLIOGRAPHY I31
INDEX 14O
GENEALOGICAL TABLES l6l
TABLES OF MARRIAGE ALLIANCES 178
LIST OF TABLES
I. 'Devr-i Fetret’ (The Great Interregnum) 16
II. The Princely Governorates 22
in. Temporary Regencies of Princes 23
IV. Military Commands of Princes 24
V. List of Fratricides 30
VI. Sultans Confined in the ‘Kafes’ 36
vii. The Extent of the Interregnums 44
vm. The Performance of the ‘Kill? KusanmasP 45
IX. Minorities and 'Regents’ 48
X. Dates and Causes of Abdication of the Sultans 58
xi. Dates and Causes of Deposition of the Sultans 76
xii. Mothers of the Sultans 83
xm. Dates and Places of Birth of the Sultans 105
xiv. Twins born to the Dynasty 106
xv. Dates, Places, and Causes of Death of the
Sultans no
xvi. Titles used by the Ottomans (and Glossary) 112
xvii. The Genealogy of the Sultans 128
xv in. The Sultans, with Dates of Accession 129
xix. Ages and Reigns of the Sultans 130
xx. The Ancestors of Osman I 162
xxi. Osman I and his Family 163
xxii. Orhan and his Family 165
xxill. Murad I and his Family 166
xxiv. Bayezid I and his Family
xxv. Mehmed I and his Family
xxvi. Murad II and his Family
xxvi 1. Mehmed II and his Family
xxvi 11. Bayezid II and his Family > between pp. 168-169
xx ix. Selim I and his Family
xxx. Suleyman I and his Family
xxxi. Selim II and his Family
xxx 1 1. Murad III and his Family ,
LIST OF TABLES
Xll
xxxiii. Mehmed III and his Family 169
xxxiv. Ahmed I and his Family facing p. 170
xxxv. Mustafa I, Osman II, and their Families 171
xxxvi. Murad IV and his Family ^
xxxvil. ibrahim and his Family > facing P- 172
xxxviii. Mehmed IV and his Family]
xxxix. Suleyman II, Ahmed II, and their Families 172
XL. Mustafa II and his Family }
XLI. Ahmed III and his Family) **““ PP ' I72 *' 73
XLii. Mahmud I, Osman III, and their Families 173
xli 1 1. Mustafa III and his Family \ . .
XL IV. Abdulhamid I and his Family) J aan S P- I /4
xlv. Selim III, Mustafa IV, and their Families 174
XL vi. Mahmud II and his Family
XL vi 1. Abdulmecid I and his Family
xlviii. Abdiilaziz and his Family
XL IX. Murad V and his Family
L. Abdulhamid II and his Family ^
Li. Mehmed V and his Family
lii. Mehmed VI and his Family
li 11. Abdulmecid (II) and his Family
liv. Alliances with Candarogullari
lv. Alliances with the Comnenes
LVI. Alliances with Dulkadirlilar
lvii. Alliances with Karamanogullari
LVI 1 1. Alliances with Krim Hanlan
lix. Alliances with Kopriiliiler
lx. Alliances with Memlukler
LX 1. Alliances with the Paleologi
lx 11. Alliances with Safeviler
LX 1 1 1. Alliances with the Serbians
between pp. 1 74-1 75
*75
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
182
^3
184
185
186
LIST OF MAPS
1. Istanbul and its Environs
2. The Anatolian Emirates and the Balkans (c. 1355)
3. The Ottoman Empire
78
84
127
INTRODUCTION
When the author became interested in Turkish history, his atten-
tion was taken by the large number of foreign marriages contracted
by the Ottoman dynasty, particularly during the first half of its
history . 1 So he was drawn into a closer study of the genealogical
history of the sultans, and what had begun as disconnected notes to
facilitate his own reading, soon began to develop into the detailed
analysis here presented. Interest was further aroused by the strange
mixture of democracy and despotism which pervades the dynasty’s
story.
In seeking to establish all the ramifications of the network of
marriages which linked the Ottoman with a dozen other more or
less powerful Muslim and Christian dynasties, many books have
been consulted, and this debt is clearly set out in the footnotes and
select bibliography . 2 Particular reference should, however, be made
to von Hammer’s Histoire de VEmpire ottomane , the Almanack de
Gotha , the Encyclopedia of Islam (and its Turkish translation), Siir-
reya’s Sicill-i Osmani , Zambaur’s Manuel de Genealogie . . . de
Vlslam , and Dam$mend’s Osmanh Tarihi Kronolojisi . These six
works have formed the basis of the study, yet even works of such
repute present a mass of conflicting evidence and are far from com-
plete. From whichever angle one approaches, it is clear that the
saray of the sultans — and especially the harem — with all its occu-
pants and occupations, was shut off behind a curtain of taboo. Those
outside knew little of what went on within its walls, while those
who had served within almost always maintained a discreet silence
concerning what they had seen . 3 So it was necessary to search for
additional and corroborative evidence in many different, and often
obscure, places: from the later Byzantine historians, through the
serried ranks of the writers of travel memoirs, to the detailed re-
search work of today presented in monographs and learned journals.
It is obvious, therefore, that this book is based almost entirely on
1 Lybyer, 17, enlarges on this theme strikingly, but his mathematical calculations
are slightly exaggerated; see p. 92.
2 In the footnotes abbreviations and short titles are used, but they are all given in
full in the Bibliography.
3 Compare the comments made by Lybyer, B. Miller, and Penzer in their respec-
tive books on the organization of the Ottoman court.
XIV
INTRODUCTION
the research of others. There is little in it that is strictly original,
although occasionally it has been possible to correct an error or give
proper emphasis to some little-known fact. But its chief aim, and
any claim to merit it may possess, is to act as a synthesis, bringing
together many related subjects which have so far never been con-
sidered in conjunction. The various genealogical tables, which form
the major part of the book, are the raw material which has been used
in preparing the different studies on the structure of the dynasty . 1
The tables which follow the text are of two kinds. First comes the
strictly genealogical group, which covers in varying detail the Otto-
man dynasty and the related Muslim and Christian dynasties. The
second consists of tables which collect together the marriage alli-
ances of the Ottoman dynasty with certain other dynasties. Cross-
references throughout the book — both in text and tables — are
facilitated by a unified system of numbering. It will be noticed that
the numbers used are not fully consecutive; this was done inten-
tionally to allow of the addition of further material with the least
possible disturbance.
It is convenient at this stage to consider certain limitations to the
use of the tables. It is noticeable in all works relating to the genealogy
of Islamic dynasties that little or no importance is attached to the
female members; the marriages which figure so prominently in
the family trees of European ruling families are almost completely
absent, or are relegated to a footnote . 2 For some dynasties this may
reflect an actual inferiority and lack of importance, but the ladies of
the Ottoman family did often play a very important role, so that here
every attempt has been made to give them due prominence.
Dates are given fully, where possible, according to the Julian and
Gregorian Calendars (a.d.), 3 and by year only according to the
Muslim Calendar (a.h.). In converting from one to the other the
author has relied on the Tables of Faik Resit Unat, which are based
on those of Mahler- Wiistenfeld. Where only a year-date was known
in one system, it has been taken to correspond to the longer of the
Note that the emphasis in this book is on ‘institutions’ rather than ‘ceremonies’*
for the latter see a book like Uzuncarsili, Sarny Teikildti.
In Surrey a s Sicill-t Os mam the sultans’ wives and daughters are considered in
the first ninety pages; in all the rest of the four volumes women are hardlv mentioned
at all.
The change from the Julian to the Gregorian Calendar is counted from 5 October
1582.
INTRODUCTION
xv
two ‘part-years’ in the other system, unless there was sufficient
external evidence to warrant the contrary. The difficulties to he
faced in fixing any date exactly must always be borne in mind : lack
of records, conflicting records, and confusion in ‘calendar-conver-
sion’ have all combined to make strict accuracy almost impossible,
even in the later periods. 1
In the tables both the wives (or husbands) and the children of the
sultans and other persons are given; but, unless specifically indi-
cated, there is no attempt to show who was the mother (or father)
of any particular child. The lists of wives and children are given in
purely alphabetical order, irrespective of dates of marriage or birth,
as the evidence available over the whole period is too scanty to
justify any other arrangement. One other point must be mentioned
with regard to wives and children. Quite often the records speak of
a wife, son, or daughter, without giving any names; to be able to
include such information two symbols— ‘S’ (son) for a male and
‘D’ (daughter) for a female — have been introduced. It is sometimes
possible, however, that the data given for such an anonymous per-
son should really be identified with a named individual, about whom
little or nothing is known.
Towards the end of the tables two limitations have been applied
to cope with the ever-increasing flow of relatively unimportant
information. From the reign of Abdiilmecid I only the most impor-
tant members of the second generation are shown and, with few
exceptions, no information has been provided subsequent to 3 March
1924 — the date when the dynasty ceased to rule.
For simplicity, and to avoid confusion in the English text, certain
words have been given specific meanings. The word ‘Sultan’ (writ-
ten with a capital ‘S’) is reserved for a reigning Sultan, while
‘prince’ and ‘princess’ are used respectively for a sultan’s sons and
daughters. Unless otherwise stated, the two words ‘marriage’ and
‘wife’ are used loosely to cover any kind of union from concubine
to legal spouse, while ‘harem’ implies the whole female household.
Except in Chapter XII, ‘Marriages’, the term ‘Early, Earlier Period’
covers the history of the dynasty up to the end of the reign of
Mehmed III, and the ‘Late, Later Period’ is held to begin with the
reign of Ahmed I.
1 The difficulties involved in the conversion of one calendar to the other are
analysed in the introduction to Dani^mend’s Osmanh Tarihi Kronolojisi , I. vn-xiv.
XVI
INTRODUCTION
To avoid possible ambiguities all Turkish personal and place
names, even when forming part of a quotation from another writer,
are spelt according to a uniform system, based on the latinized
Turkish alphabet. On the other hand, all non-Turkish names are
spelt as in English.
With so many names and dates to record it would have made the
book far too bulky to quote the authorities for each item. The details
given have been checked and rechecked over a period of fourteen
years and it is hoped that they are accurate; but footnotes have been
reserved as far as possible for dealing with controversial matters and
supplying additional information.
I
ORIGINS
With the opening of the fourteenth century the Ottoman Turks
became a definite factor in Anatolian politics and from that time
forward we can be fairly certain of their history. Prior to 1300, how-
ever, little or nothing is known of them: a few names, an occasional
and rather doubtful date, and that is all. The rest is legendary, some
part actually going back to those early days, but a great deal invented
in later times to try to explain what had gone before — or even just
to enhance the prestige of the tribe among the other peoples of the
Orient. 1 With the elucidation of these legends, and with the kindred
problems of the ethnographic and historical origins of the Ottoman
Turks, this book is not concerned. Different theories have been
propounded, but they are limited by the comparative scarcity of
information as yet available concerning Anatolia during the declin-
ing years of the Seljuks of Rum. 2
At some stage in the early thirteenth century a small band of
nomads, half shepherd and half warrior, arrived within the bounds
of the Seljuk Empire, which was already tottering to its fall under
the blows of the Mongols. These new-comers — ‘adventurers, desir-
ous of finding pasturage for their sheep and cattle, and ready to sell
their services to any other tribe’ 3 — were assigned to guard a small
sector of the western frontier against Byzantium and, once they had
settled down, soon began to take an active part in the life of the
Border. It was all experience which was to serve them well in the
future.
By the time this band of which we have been speaking emerged
1 Wittek, R.O.E., 7 ff.
2 Kopriilu, O.E.O., passim, and ‘Etnik Men?ei’ in Belleten , 28; Wittek, R.O,E. f
Passi?n , Brockelmann, 256 ff. A neat summary of Wittek ’$ ideas is to be found in Fisher,
9-13. See also Sumer, ‘Kavmi Men^eleri’, in R.T.M. v. 3077.
Cambridge Medieval History , iv. 655. Toynbee, 113, says: ‘In fact, the Ottomans
had received the leavings of the Seljuk estate because they were the latest comers and
had arrived in humble circumstances. Their eponym, Osman, was the son of one
Ertugrul, the leader of a nameless band of refugees, an insignificant fragment of the
human wreckage which had been hurled to the farthest extremities of “Dar-ul Islam” by
the tremendous impact of the Mongol wave when it broke upon the North-East
marches of the Iranic Society from the heart of the Eurasian Steppe.’
5707
B
2
ORIGINS
into history as the Ottoman Turks, it had become a well-organized
‘marcher’ community . 1 There was some semblance of constitu-
tional government by a marcher-lord, subject — though only just,
for the Seljuk Empire was on the verge of disintegration — to the
suzerain in Konya . 2 There was a well-founded economy, based on
the summer and winter pasturage of flocks and herds and on control
of some of the main Anatolian trade-routes. Above all, to make the
tribe strongly aggressive for Islam, there was in its midst a very
active cell of ‘Ahiler’, led by i50o/§eyh Ede-bali and his family. But
it is to be noted that, as soon as possible, both ‘Alplar’ and ‘Ahiler’
were weaned of their power in favour of the sultans’ more immediate
relations . 3
At some time during the first quarter of the fourteenth century 4
the Ottoman rulers assumed the two prerogatives of independence :
they ordered their names to be read during the Friday prayers
(‘Hutba’) and they began to mint their own coins (‘Sikke’). Either
then, or perhaps earlier, they also set up their own flags (‘Sancak’)
and established the royal music (‘Mehterhane’), two further sym-
bols of sovereignty . 5
Thus secure in the possession of a new home-land in Western
Anatolia, the Ottoman Turks looked around for spheres of expan-
sion. Their advance during the fourteenth century was due equally
to good fortune and to an ability to seize opportunities. The almost
simultaneous collapse of the Seljuk Empire in Anatolia and of the
Byzantine Empire in the Balkans made it possible for the Ottoman
1 A picturesque, yet not unduly romanticized, description of the Ottoman Turks at
that time can be found in Tulbent^s novel, Osmanogullan.
2 The outward forms of submission were observed, but for all practical purposes the
peripheral emirates were independent. However, Seljuk domination was soon replaced
by that of the llhanlilar: ‘Turkish histories which point to 699 [1300] as the year when
the Ottoman State became independent are certainly wrong. Osman Bey, both at this
date and later, continued to be a marcher-lord under the suzerainty of the llhanlilar
There is no doubt that Osman Bey was among those invited to do homage to the
llhanlilar in 1317 by their governor, Emir Qobanoglu Demirta$. There exists a record
according to which Orhan Bey had to deliver a fixed tribute every year to their Treasury,
which shows that both Osman Bey and his son recognized the suzerainty of the
llhanlilar.’ Uzungar^ili, O.T. i. 27, 30. Complete independence came with the death
of llhan Bahadur in 1335.
3 See Taeschner, in Oriens, VI. i. 23, n. 1, and Uzunsar^ih, S.T, 40. The ‘Alplar’
were the comrades-in-arms from associated tribes.
4 The time is fixed between the collapse of the Seljuk Empire and 1327, the date of
the first known Ottoman coins,
5 ‘Sancak’ and ‘Mehterhane’ were symbols of lesser authority and had probably
been granted during the suzerainty of the Seljuks. See Uzu^arsih, S.T . 240 ff and
273 ff-
ORIGINS
3
Turks to extend their power westwards against divided Christian
enemies and eastwards against divided Muslim successor-states.
Even the humiliation of defeat by Timur had little permanent
effect on their growth, because he left them in undisputed posses-
sion of their territories in Europe, which were to serve as a spring-
board for the reconquest of Anatolia.
It was, then, from the leaders of this small tribe, 44/Ertugrul and
Osman I, that there sprang the dynasty whose institutions are to be
examined in the following pages.
II
SUCCESSION
From the time of 44/Ertugrul (died 1281), the father of Osman I,
down to the exile of Abdiilmecid (II) in 1924 — that is, for six and a
half centuries— the House of Osman ruled continuously over the
Ottoman Turks from five successive capitals: Sogiit, Yeni^ehir,
Bursa, Edirne, and Istanbul. ‘The domination of the Ottoman clan,
which should have been a mere passing phenomenon, like the
similar domination of another Tartar clan in Russia’, possessed
such powers of survival that even a disaster like the onslaught of
Timur and the Interregnum served only to strengthen it. But in
seeking an explanation for this dynastic longevity any glib reference
to polygamy must be avoided : at least in the House of Osman the
‘increasing’ influence of polygamy was more than offset by the ‘de-
creasing’ effects of the Law of Fratricide and the institution of the
‘Kafes’.
What is much more remarkable than the time-span, however, is
that the sultans ruled in unbroken succession in the male line, with-
out recourse to any relation more distant than brother, nephew or
first cousin, although on at least two occasions the danger of a com-
plete failure in the dynasty did arise. Moreover, the average length
of reign of the sultans, seventeen years, compares quite favourably
with those of other great dynasties, 1 indicating that the sultanate
was a reasonably stable form of government. Discussion of the
succession in the House of Osman resolves itself, therefore, into
two parts : an analysis of actual practice, together with a study of the
provision made for any possible break in the line.
In the Orient, and particularly in ‘Dar-iil Islam’, the usual custom
was for tribal leadership to pass to the eldest male member of the
ruling family; thus the succession generally moved, not in the
vertical father-to-son line familiar to the Occident (‘Amud-i-Nesebi’),
but in a zigzag through brothers and nephews (‘Ekber-i-Nesebi’).
1 See Table XIX, p. 130. The Roman emperors averaged seven years, the Byzantine
emperors twelve, the Abassid caliphs twelve, the Russian czars eighteen, the French
kings twenty-one, and the English kings twenty-three years. These figures are based
on the tables in An Encyclopedia of World History .
SUCCESSION
5
This may seem a rather sweeping generalization, but it is supported
by a perusal of the genealogical studies of Lane-Poole and Zambaur.
However, just at the point in time when the Ottoman Turks moved
into historical focus, an event took place which was to change this.
There are few details of 42/Diindar’s murder at the hands of his
nephew Osman I, even the date 1298 is doubtful; but the inference
to be drawn from the story is surely clear. It was the climax to the
struggle of Osman, asserting his claim to succeed his father Ertugrul,
against the customary rights of his uncle Diindar. This act, almost
one of usurpation, seems to have been acceptable to the tribe for
more than one reason. If, as appears likely, Ertugrul had renounced
his authority because of old age, 1 it was hardly reasonable to allow
the power to pass to another octogenarian (the dates are traditional).
Moreover, Diindar represented the past; if the legend is true, he
also had come from central Asia with his father 40/Suleyman ^ah.
But the tribe then established at Yeni$ehir and poised for action in
the west, was looking to the future; it needed a Joshua to lead it
into the Promised Land. It is not certain whether Osman was the
eldest son of Ertugrul — there was no attempt to assert the principle
of primogeniture— but he was a son and for the next three hundred
years the succession was to pass from father to son.
In fact, far from there being any theory of primogeniture at this
stage, the law of succession may well be described as a ‘free-for-all’,
in which the strongest of the sons inherited the throne, while the
others — according to the Law of Fratricide — suffered death. 2 The
stakes were indeed very high and the resulting struggles correspon-
dingly fierce, each prince being supported by those leaders and offi-
cials who thought that he would best serve their purpose. It clearly
rested with the officials in power to decide which of a dead sultan’s
sons was to be sent the message which would bring him to the
1 See p. 54.
2 ‘As there was no Law of Succession among the Ottomans, there was neither rule
nor custom to show whether a dead sultan should be replaced by an older or younger
son. In the early days this was in the hands of the “Ahiler”, who played an important
part in state affairs, and the governors, and the chief thing was to choose the most cap-
able.’ Uzun9ar$ili, S.T. 45. In this respect notice the vagueness of Mehmed IPs Law
of Fratricide: ‘And to whomsoever of my sons the sultanate shall pass . . . .’ Similarly,
‘among the Candarogullari there w r as no Law of Succession and so each ruler appointed
as his heir the son he wished. As a result there were sometimes bloody struggles among
the ruling family over the division of the state and appointment of an heir/ OlkUta$ir,
in T.T.A.E. v. 157. Uluyay, Ask Mektuplcin , 16, is wrong in saying, ‘There existed a
Law of Succession. The eldest son definitely took the place of the dead sultan.’
6
SUCCESSION
throne. This was also one of the reasons why it was necessary to
conceal the death of a sultan until such time as his successor was in
a position to be proclaimed; otherwise there would have been many
more civil wars. 1 This can best be seen in the struggles for the throne
among the sons of Bayezid I (1402-13), Mehmed II (1481-3),
Bayezid II (1509-12), and Suleyman I (1550-66).
When Timur had defeated Bayezid I at the Battle of Ankara in
1402, it seemed as if the Ottoman Empire must inevitably collapse
and be wiped out. But, for strategic reasons, Timur was content to
make the sons of Bayezid acknowledge his overlordship and then
leave them in effective control of their father’s lands. 2 Unfortunately
they could not agree among themselves as to the unity or division
of the inheritance and there followed eleven years of internecine
strife, ‘Devr-i Fetret’ — during which 532/fsa, 540/Siileyman, and
537/Musa were in turn eliminated. Then, and only then, could
Mehmed I resurrect the title of sultan, which was reserved for the
ruler of the united empire. But it seems clear that these internal
dissensions had little effect on the external position of the Ottoman
Empire, otherwise it could easily have been swamped by a combina-
tion of neighbouring princes. 3
With the death of Mehmed II in 1481 there opened another
period of civil war which was to last until Bayezid II had driven his
brother 570/Cem into permanent exile. 4 This struggle raised several
points of interest from the constitutional side. To begin with,
there was Cem’s claim to the throne on the specious ground of
being porphyrogenitus’, a claim which was completely alien to
Islamic law, where every child is equal and legitimate. Then Cem
set himself up as a rival sultan, minting money and being named by
1 See pp. 25 ff. and 107.
2 Mehmed I and 532/tsa, being in Anatolia, were particularly subject to Timur’s
overlordship; on the former’s coins for 806 [1404] appears the inscription: ‘Demurhan
Gurkan Mehmed bin Bayezid Han’ — see Uzunsar^ih, O.T. i. 174, n. 1. For the whole
period of the ‘Devr-i Fetret’, see Dan^mend, O.T.K. i. 134-67, and Wittek, in Belleten
27 - 557 *
By this battle [Camurlu, July 14*3] the unity of the Ottoman state was re-estab-
lished ; nevertheless, one gets the impression that even after the Battle of Ankara the
supremacy of the House of Osman over the other Mohammedan and Christian chiefs
in Anatolia and the Balkan Peninsula was never seriously questioned.’ J. H. Kramers in
E.I. iii. 658. On the other hand, Wittek, R.O.E. 4, says: ‘The Ottomans were, after
the disastrous defeat inflicted on them by Timur at Ankara, thrown into a most critical
situation which menaced even their political existence.’ See Table I, p. 16.
4 Fisher, passim, shows how the fear of Cem’s renewing the struggle dominated all
of Bayezid’s foreign policy until the former’s death in 1495.
SUCCESSION
7
the Faithful in the Friday prayers (‘Sikke’ and ‘Hutba’). He even
went further and proposed to divide the Empire with Bayezid ; but
such things were more than personal attacks. They represented a
blow at the integrity of the Ottoman Empire and Bayezid rightly
refused to treat with Cem. 1 The struggles among the sons of
Bayezid II came to a head some long time before his death and led
eventually to his deposition in 1512 and the accession of his
youngest son; but they are more conveniently discussed in a later
chapter. 2
The conflict for power among the sons of Suleyman I lasted for
more than fifteen years ; in fact, it may be said to have begun almost
as soon as he had two sons to be rivals, and behind the sons were
the rival mothers: 152/Mahidevran and 151/Hurrem. It does seem,
however, that as long as 141/Hafise Valide Sultan was alive, she
insisted on peaceful relations within the harem. Apart from other
deaths by natural causes, Selim II eventually reached the throne
over the bodies of four brothers and four nephews.
In this respect, it is interesting to note how many times the
succession, for a variety of reasons, did not pass to the eldest son
favoured by the father. Leaving aside the doubtful question of the
relative ages of Orhan and 501/Alaeddin, there came first the tragic
death of 514/Suleyman Pa§a just at the moment when he was
assuming responsibility for the government of his father’s domin-
ions. Then it was Mehmed I, the youngest of Bayezid’s sons, who
emerged triumphant from the Interregnum, just as later Selim I
overcame his older brothers. To these one can add the early deaths
of 560/Ahmed and 562/Alaeddin Ali, sons of Murad II, and of
Suleyman Fs 606/Mustafa.
These struggles were the symptoms of the disease of fragmenta-
tion which had so often brought about the collapse of dynasties,
such as the Carolingian in Europe and the Seljuk in Asia Minor.
Previous to Cem’s proposal to split the Empire with Bayezid II,
Chalcocondyles records that Mehmed I had intended to divide his
1 ‘It involved a direct violation of one of the fundamental canons of Islam : that there
shall be only one supreme Imam. Bayezid’s decision accordingly influenced the history
of the world. He refused to accept Cem’s offer. “The empire”, he said, “is the bride of
one lord”. 5 Bury in Cam. Mod . Hist. i. 85. Similarly, Suleyman I tolerated almost every
sign of grandiose usurpation of rights by his brother-in-law, the Grand Vizir 2036/
Ibrahim Pa§a, until the latter dared to sign himself ‘Serasker Sultan’, and Buhara
Meliki Abdullah wrote to him as ‘Sultan Ibrahim’.
2 See the chapters on Abdication and Deposition, pp. 54 ff. and 59 ff.
8
SUCCESSION
possessions between two sons, giving the European provinces to
Murad II and the Asiatic to his other son, 554/Mustafa. 1 Fortunately
nothing came of either of these plans; in general the Ottoman
sultans had an overruling conception of imperial unity. To combat
the danger of disruption, they introduced two safeguards : the first
was to grant the heir-presumptive the provincial governorate
nearest to the capital, which gave him a good chance of seizing the
throne at his father’s death before any other claimant. Secondly,
there was the Law of Fratricide by which a new sultan could remove
all his rivals. 2
Many writers have blamed Osman and the later sultans for not
having proclaimed a definite and indisputable Law of Succession,
but presumably the latter judged this to be contrary to the best
interests of the dynasty. Loyalty to the House of Osman was un-
swerving throughout its history; as long as it continued to provide
rulers, whether satisfactory or not, there was never any suggestion
to displace it. 3 But, granted a succession within the framework of
that family, the sultans came up against the sentiment that the
people were at liberty to choose whom they would and also to
depose him freely. 4 This provided a safeguard against the appearance
of a weak sultan who, unfitted to rule, might otherwise have brought
about the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. It is true that the
‘people’ were generally represented in this matter by the Janis-
saries or a small palace clique, but the sultans never saw fit to
meddle openly with this ‘democratic spirit’. It was surely the
remains of the old tribal right to choose the chief and, when sultan
became also caliph, the theory of election was strengthened. 5 The
resulting system may well be described as a compromise between
the hereditary and elective principles.
1 Chalcocondyles, 102. 2 See pp. 17 ff. and 25 ff.
3 ‘A weak or a vicious sultan may be deposed and strangled but his inheritance
devolves to an infant or an idiot.' Gibbon, vii. 78. It was only the flight of Mehmed VI
in 1922 which changed this attitude.
4 4 In the Ottoman dynasty founded by Orhan, the head of the State was chosen —
until the time of Murad II — by the influential leaders and governors. This position
was never allowed to pass to any other family. Murad I and Yildinm Bayezid were
chosen as rulers by the decision of the governors.' Uzun^ar^ih, S.T. 41 ; but he quotes
no authorities on this point of election. Fisher, 105 and n. 14, referring to the withered
leg of 586/§ahin$ah ibni Bayezid II, says that no one with a physical defect could
become sultan — but he also gives no authorities; one must consider 1555/Koturum
(paralytic) Bayezid Candaroglu and Timur-i Lenk (lame) before accepting this point.
5 See Gibb and Bowen, i. 26-38.
SUCCESSION
9
From this it follows that, in Ottoman minds, there could never
be any distinction between the sultan de facto and the sultan dejure\
whoever occupied the throne at any given moment was its rightful
possessor. For this reason there were few attempts made to replace
deposed sultans on their thrones, and all ended tragically for those
concerned. It follows that Western writers — thinking in terms of
Western constitutional theory — are at fault when they speak of one
prince as the ‘rightful* sultan and of another as the ‘usurper*.
If there was no formal ceremony of election, at least the will of
the people was clearly expressed on many occasions and was em-
bodied in the ceremony known as ‘BiatV The circumstances of
Osman Fs succession have been discussed above, but those of later
sultans deserve some consideration. Orhan was probably the eldest
son of Osman I ; in any case he had been the most prominent during
his father’s last years, perhaps because of his connexions with the
‘Ahiler’. Murad I, however, was younger than either 5 14/ Suleyman
Pa§a or 511/Ibrahim, yet on the former’s death he was appointed
to rule Rumelia and, when Orhan also died, Murad seized power
and executed Ibrahim. Neither is it certain that Bayezid I was older
than 522/Yakub, whom he caused to be executed at Kosova, but
the tribal leaders chose him for his military prowess. 2 When dying,
Mehmed I declared to the leaders of the state his wish that his eldest
son Murad II should succeed him; the majority accepted this and
loyally supported him, but Murad’s position was challenged both
by his uncle 538/Mustafa and by his brother 554/Mustafa. In the
end the latter were defeated and executed; but the claims of the
uncle suggest an attempt to revive the traditional line of succession.
In 1446 Mehmed II was set aside and his father brought back by
the soldiery ; yet a few years later,
‘Mehmed II was by the same Janissaries and the other soldiers of the Court
with great triumph saluted king. Which approbation of these men of war is
unto the Turkish kings a greater assurance for the possession of their king-
dom than to be born the eldest son of the king ... so great is the power of
these masterful slaves in promoting to the kingdom whichsoever of the king’s
sons they most favour without much regard whether he be the eldest or not .’ 3
1 See p. 40.
2 It is significant, though possibly without authority, that Cantemir, 43, in describ-
ing the Battle of Kosova wrote, ‘the great men assembled about the choice of a new
Emperor and Yildinm Bayezid, Murad’s eldest son, is unanimously declared Sultan. . . .
By the consent of the chief men’ Yakub Qelebi was then executed. See Dam§mend,
O.T.K. i. 83. 3 Knolles, 337.
IO
SUCCESSION
Yet again, in spite of the Grand Vizir Mehmed Karamani's lean-
ings towards 570/Cem, the Janissaries and the people of Istanbul
stuck out for Bayezid II in 1481.
There were no further changes in the rules governing the succes-
sion until after the death of Suleyman I, when the next two sultans
carefully limited the appointments to the princely governorates,
sending only their eldest sons, who were thus singled out as the next
successors to the throne. With the turn of the century, however, a
combination of circumstances brought about a development which
was to have far-reaching results; but it must be emphasized that
the change was empirical, almost fortuitous. 1
When Mehmed III came to the throne at the beginning of 1595,
he executed his nineteen remaining brothers according to custom.
Then he decided to keep all his own sons at court, rather than
appoint even one of them to a provincial governorate, probably
because he feared their intrigues. In spite of this he was later forced
to execute the princes 652/Selim and 651 /Mahmud, while two other
sons died natural deaths before their father. As a result, when
Mehmed III died, his elder surviving son Ahmed I was only
thirteen and a half years old, while Mustafa I was about twelve.
Neither had ever held a governorate, so that their qualities were all
unknown; it would have been dangerous, therefore, to remove one
of them by Fratricide — particularly before an heir was born to the
dynasty. 2 Secondly, i\hmed and Mustafa were blood brothers and
it is more than likely that their mother, 180/Handan Valide Sultan,
may have insisted on Ahmed sparing Mustafa's life. Thirdly,
Mehmed Ill's mass execution of his brothers had had a very dis-
turbing effect on public opinion. But, whatever the reason, Mustafa's
life was not taken and he was transferred to the ‘Kafes'— a minia-
ture court with a sterilized harem inside the ‘Top-Kapi Sarayi'.
Thus it came about that, when Ahmed I died in 1617, there was in
existence — for the first time since the murder of 42/Diindar— an
uncle to take the place of the normal heir. The latter was 'Gen?'
1 For the whole question of the change from ‘father- to-son* to ‘eldest male’ descent,
see Giese, Das Seniorat . He flatly condemns the idea that ‘eldest male’ succession was
the rule in the Ottoman Empire or that it was consciously taken over from Old Turkish
and Mongolian custom. He also points out that the Ottoman historians hardly touch
on the subject.
2 See Wittek, in Byzantion , xviii. 333; Giese misses this essential point. For a con-
temporary explanation, see the quotation from Coryates, p. 29.
SUCCESSION
ii
Osman II, a boy of only thirteen, so the Ulema decided to revert to
oriental practice and Mustafa I, as eldest male, was chosen to be
Sultan. Here was a clear case of the elective principle at work, but
the deciding factor was the existence of the elder Mustafa I, rather
than Osman IFs youthfulness — he was only five months younger
than his father had been at the time of his accession. 1 The change is
expressed in a letter from Osman II to James I of England: ‘This
paternal empire and monarchical kingdom hath almost until this
present blessed time been always hereditary from grandfather to
father, from father to son and so cursively in that manner; but
having regard unto the age and years of our great and noble uncle
Sultan Mustafa, he was preferred and honoured to sit on the Otto-
man throne/ 2 Two other reasons may be suggested for the break
with custom ; in the first place, Mustafa’s recurring madness was, in
the eyes of his oriental contemporaries, a sign of divine approval.
Secondly, the scheming ‘Haseki’, 191/KosemMahpeyker Sultan may
have seen more hope for the eventual succession of her own sons,
Murad IV and Ibrahim, if Mustafa I rather than Osman II came
to the throne at the death of Ahmed I ; Osman would almost cer-
tainly have executed his brothers, at least as soon as he had children
of his own. But Mustafa had, and would have, no children of his
own to succeed him, and during his reign it might be possible to
eliminate Osman II; so Kosem set herself to bribe officers and offi-
cials into arranging Mustafa’s accession — only his ensuing madness
ruined her plan. 3
Once a precedent had been created the change soon became
permanent, though an element of chance — arising from the
1 In this the author disagrees with the interpretation of Gibb and Bowen, i. 37; the
crux of the matter is not the succession of Mustafa I in 1617 but his survival after 1603.
While Gibb and Bowen speak of ‘Kanunlar’ and constitutional regulations, his feeling
is that the change, beginning as a purely practical arrangement in 1603, owed its con-
tinuation to the ill effects of the ‘Kafes’ system. This view is supported by Giese, 255-6,
where he declares that the idea of eldest-male succession first became law only in the
Constitution of 1876. Article 3 of the latter states that, ‘The Succession among the
Ottomans belongs by very ancient custom to the eldest member of the family’; see
also p. 1 19, ‘Veliahd’. Gibb and Bowen are also wrong in stating that before 1617 ‘no
minor had ever succeeded’; there was no legal obstacle to a minor’s succession. Ahmed I
had been only thirteen at his accession in 1603, while Mehmed II w^as only twelve at
the time of his first accession.
2 Purchas, 1612. But in a proclamation to the troops Osman insisted that his own
rights had been usurped, and he always bore a grudge against Grand Vizir Halil Pa?a,
his deputy 2283/Gurcu Mehmed Pa$a and the ‘§eyh-ul Islam’, 2260/Haci Mehmed
Esad, who had passed him over. See Uzun^ar^ili, S.T. 47, and O.T. 111. i. 133.
3 See Dam§mend, O.T.K. iii. 270, and Uzun^ar^ili, O.T . ill. i. 546-8.
12
SUCCESSION
uncertainty of life in the ‘Kafes’ — which still remained in the suc-
cession ‘led to intense rivalry and intrigue among the mothers of
the various princes and to the consequent formation of different
factions which involved not only the harem but also the court and
the army’. 1 These were sometimes eliminated when, as in the case
of Mehmed IV, the eldest male of the family was also the eldest son
of the preceding sultan.
The change from Governorates and Fratricide to the ‘Kafes’, with
its rigid system of birth-control, helped to perpetuate the new order
of succession. It meant that until after his accession a sultan had no
children, so that when he died his sons were often still too young
to rule. It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century that
the ‘Kafes’ regulations in this matter were relaxed ; the first to escape
was Abdtilaziz whose son, 844/Yusuf Izzeddin, was born in 1857,
four years before his father’s accession. The results of this policy
can be seen most dramatically in the genealogical tables which show
that between the reigns of Selim II and Abdtilmecid I — a period
of almost three hundred years — the princes who were confined in
the ‘Kafes’ and did not become sultans had no children at all.
The ‘rule’ of the eldest male (‘Ekberiyyet’) continued from 1617
until the fall of the dynasty in 1924, but on more than one occasion
attempts were made to revert to the father-to-son principle and
even to bring in a definite system of primogeniture, which is
further proof of the continued absence of a definite law. Ahmed III
seems to have been desirous of ‘diverting the expectations of the
people from his nephew [Mahmud I] to his own son’. 2 When
Mustafa III lay dying, those around tried to persuade him to alter
the succession in favour of his own son Selim III — that is, away
from Abdiilhamid I — but he refused to do so. Abdtilmecid I was
always looking for an opportunity to ensure that he would be suc-
ceeded by his son Murad V, rather than by his brother Abdtilaziz,
but he could not arrange it. 3 For the same reason, the successful
demands of the Khedives of Egypt to be allowed to establish the
1 B. Miller, Palace School , 176. Giese, 253, says that the various cliques found the
‘Kafes’ system advantageous because it provided a wider choice of candidates for the
throne. But there was no wider choice after 1 600 than before ; fewer princes survived
and they had no children. On the contrary, the majority' of occasions when the dynasty
almost died out were after 1600.
2 See Shay, 18. Also Mehmed IV; see Uzun£ar$ili, O.T. iii. i. 506.
3 $ehsuvaroglu, Sultan Aziz , 15. Giese, 255-6, says that both Sultans (Abdulmecid
and Abdulaziz) were inspired by a desire to emulate Western institutions.
SUCCESSION
13
rule of primogeniture in that country were well received by
Abdiilaziz, because he hoped it would create a precedent by which
he could leave the throne to his son 844/Yusuf Izzeddin. 1 He was
unsuccessful because the spirit of conservatism was too strong in
Istanbul. So strong was it that in 1876 the Ulema insisted on en-
throning Murad V, rather than Abdiilhamid II, even though the
former had already given clear signs of the mental unbalance which
was to make necessary his deposition only three months later.
On several occasions the Ottoman dynasty was in danger of
collapse from internal failure. Apart from his own infant sons,
Suleyman I was the only male of the House of Osman at the time
of his accession and the same was true of Selim II, all of whose
brothers were already dead. When Ibrahim came to the throne in
1640 he was the only member of the family in the male line of
succession, but at his death he left six sons; some have commented
that this refounding of the dynasty was his one real achievement. 2
Again, in 1808, when Mustafa IV was executed, Mahmud II was
the only male representative of the family remaining; it was only
after another four years that a son was born to him. In fact, between
the years 1785 and 1812 (with the doubtful exception of a post-
humous son born to Mustafa IV) no sons were born to the dynasty
at all, while for many years after 1812 infantile mortality kept the
succession in a precarious position. A similar period of infertility
had occurred between 1728 and 1761. Apart from these natural
failures, several sultans tried to protect their own lives by killing
off all possible rivals. Early in his reign Mehmed IV, before he had
sons to follow him, attempted to kill off his brothers, but was
dissuaded. In 1808 Mustafa IV also tried; Selim III he managed to
1 About 1863 the Khedive Ismail, ‘who loathed his brother Mustafa Fadil, and
dreaded his uncle Abdulhalim, both heirs-apparent after Ismail, wanted nothing short
of primogeniture. In addition to the price that he was ready to pay to effect the desired
change, Ismail counted on the support of the Sultan himself, who welcomed the oppor-
tunity of creating a precedent before launching his own resolve of a similar change in
the Ottoman constitution.* Rifaat, in; cf. $ehsuvaroglu, 45. In his turn 844/Yusuf
Izzeddin is said to have hoped, when he should become sultan, to divert the succession
to his own son, 2594/Mehmed Nizameddin; see Orik, in R.T.M . iv. 2387.
2 Gibb and Bowen, i. 37, write: ‘The one exception was Mehmed IV, who in 1648
succeeded his father Ibrahim at the age of seven years because he was the sole Ottoman
prince alive. And the case is interesting because it follows that all the subsequent
Sultans were the descendants of Ibrahim, who, if not actually mad, was at least eccentric
to the verge of madness.* The second part of this is true, but the first is patently false,
since Ibrahim was outlived by at least six sons, three of whom eventually came to the
throne; it was, however, true of Ibrahim himself, who alone survived Murad IV.
14
SUCCESSION
kill, but Mahmud II escaped his clutches. 1 However, the gravest
threat of all to the House of Osman had been in 1 640 when Murad IV
tried to commit dynastic suicide; on his death-bed he ordered the
execution of his brother Ibrahim, the only other male member of
the family alive. The latter was only saved by a trick of their mother,
191/Kosem Mahpeyker Valide Sultan, who convinced Murad that
his orders had been obeyed. 2
It remains now to deal with the hypothetical question, Who
would have succeeded to the Ottoman Empire had the House of
Osman ever died out completely ? From the middle of the eighteenth
century onwards the correct answer is probably that the Powers of
Europe, and Persia in the East, would have stepped in and annexed
the parts of the Empire each was most interested in, rather along
the lines of the dismemberment proposed in 1918. Having satisfied
their own territorial needs, they might then have given the subject
races an opportunity to become independent ; in other words, suc-
cession would have meant partition and absorption. But for the
previous four centuries a rather different answer must be given. It
must be realized that first Fratricide and later the ‘Kafes’ effectively
limited the House of Osman to the direct male issue of the sultans,
together with descendants through the female line. Although there
was never anything approaching a Salic Law in Turkey, the ques-
tion posed here is only concerned with the failure of the first group.
At all times descendants through the female line were considered
too vaguely connected — within a couple of generations they sank
back into the commonalty of subjects. It is said, however, that
Suleyman I, grown tired of the continual quarrels between his sons
Bayezid and Selim, threatened to disinherit both in favour of their
cousin 2o63/Osman$ah Bey (son of 1096/D). 3 Then there was the
case of 2165/Ibrahim Han, son of mo/Esmahan Sultan and the
Grand Vizir, 2162/Mehmed Sokollu Pa$a, who became a provincial
governor and whose descendants were quite influential. 4 But one feels
1 See pp. 67-69.
2 ‘It may be doubted whether this mark of the ruling spirit — vengeance — strong in
death was caused by the delirium of fever, or from a desire that his favourite the
Silahdar Pa§a should succeed to the throne on the extinction of the House of Osman,
or whether Murad IV w ished for the gloomy satisfaction of knowing that his house and
dynasty would descend to the grave with him/ Historians' History , xxiv. 381.
3 Uzun^ar^ih, O.T. ii. 395.
4 ‘About the decline of the seventeenth century the legend arose that the Ibrahim-
hanzadeler would succeed to the throne in case the Ottoman dynasty should die out,
SUCCESSION
i5
that the Ibrahimhanzadeler would have found it very difficult
indeed to rise from the position of subject to that of sovereign; in
spite of the power of the Janissaries there was never any possibility
of a ‘Mameluke’ system in the Ottoman Empire. The Turks had
such a deep respect for the royal blood that they could not even
conceive of the throne passing to another family.
The only other possible claimants to the throne were the rulers of
some of the subject peoples or their descendants. But it must be
emphasized that their claims were purely legendary, had no legal
foundation whatsoever, and had probably been fabricated by dif-
ferent travellers out of local gossip. In the first place there were the
families, such as the Dulkadirhlar and the Candarogullan (Kizil
Ahmedliler), who could show close connexion with the House of
Osman in its early days through a series of dynastic marriages. 1 But
after their original subjugation none of these families were pre-
eminently powerful above the other great landowners of Anatolia.
Then there was the Giray Han family of Krim, which ‘occupied a
special position in Ottoman esteem, since it was an offshoot of the
Golden Horde and so descended from the redoubtable Mongol
£ingiz Han’. 2 To them, ‘for want of heirs-male in the Ottoman line,
the Empire is by ancient compact to descend’. 3 i9i5/§ah Ismail of
Persia had also hoped to gain some lien on the succession to the
Ottoman Empire by the marriage of his daughter to 1913/Murad,
grandson of Bayezid II, but it profited him nothing.
These, then, were the families whom in the seventeenth century
Sagredo described as being among the ‘Famiglie del Regio sangue’. 4
But it cannot be repeated too often that there is no evidence for any
‘ancient compact’ with any of these families. Nor, one feels, could
any of them have successfully seized power had the opportunity
occurred — but it never did.
and for that reason the sultans were bound to respect the lives of all members of this
family.’ E.I. ii. 438.
1 See pp. 87-94, and Tables LIV and LVI.
2 Gibb and Bowen, i. 25.
3 Rycaut, 58; Gibb and Bowen, i. 25, say the same thing.
4 Sagredo, 1068; and Uzun9ar$ili, O.T. ill. i. 520. In a letter to the Valide Sultan
in 1 71 1, Baltaci Mehmed Pa$a mentions the various claims to the succession possible
ln I 7 ° 3 ; see a review in Belleten , 9. 137. These various claims were still in the popular
mind as late as 1808: ‘W T hen the rebels learnt of Mustafa IV’s death, they began
to shout that they had lost confidence in Mahmud II. Some among them wanted to
proclaim as Sultan one of the descendants of Esma Sultan, or the [Mevlevi] §eyh of
Konya or the Krim Tatar Hans.’ Karal, O.T. v. 100.
i6
SUCCESSION
When the dynasty was finally exiled in 1924, a rather delicate
situation arose as to who was the real head of the family and,
therefore, ‘Pretender* to the throne should the Republic collapse
and there be a Restoration. Admittedly Abdiilmecid (II) was the
last member of the family to have ruled in Istanbul, but he had
been only caliph and not sultan, and his power had been a mere
shadow. To challenge his position in exile there was his elder cousin
Mehmed VI, who had been both sultan and caliph, but had fled
the country. It is clear that there was a certain rivalry between these
two, as to which was the unofficial caliph of the Muslim world and
head of the family. This was fostered by petty jealousies between
the descendants of Abdiilmecid I and those of Abdulaziz, but came
to an end with the death of Mehmed VI in 1926. Abdiilmecid (II)
remained undisputed head of the family until his own death in
1944, when he was technically succeeded by the next eldest male,
861/Abdiilkadir. But by that time the whole issue had become
entirely academic, since it was quite clear that Turkey would
never again submit to the rule of the descendants of Osman.
Table I. * Devr~i Fetref ( The Great Interregnum)
804 [28. 7. 1402]— 816 [5. 7. 1413]
The period when the Ottoman Empire was divided among
the different sons of Bayezid I. 1
Anatolia.
(a) 5 /Mehmed I. 805 [8. 14023-806 [1404] (Amasya).
(b) 532/tsa. 805 [8. 14023-806 [1403] (Balikesir/Bursa).
(<0 537/Musa. 806 [14033-806 [1404] (Bursa).
(d) si Mehmed I. 806 [14043-816 [5. 7. 1413] (Bursa/Amasya).
Rumelia.
(a) 540/Suleyman. 805 [8. 14023-813 [17. 2. 1411] (Edime).
(0 537/Musa. 813 [17. 2. 14113-816 [5. 7. 1413] (Edime).
1 See Uzun^ar^ili, O.T. i. 173; Dan^mend, O.T.K. i. 134; Wittek, in Belleten , 27.
557. It is clear that Bayezid’s sons— particularly 532/tsa and Mehmed I— had to recogl
nize Timur’s overlordship; on Mehmed I’s coins of 806 [14043 is the inscription
‘Demurhan Giirkan-Mehmed bin Bayezid Han’. Events in Anatolia during the first
few years are particularly difficult to follow.
Ill
THE PRINCELY GOVERNORATES
As new territories were added to the original patrimony of Osman I,
they were organized into provinces, each with its own governor;
while the continued expansion of the empire led gradually to a
more complex system of government, the general pattern soon
became clear. Under the sultan and the grand vizir the empire was
divided into two major parts: Anatolia and Rumelia, governed
respectively by the ‘Anadolu Beylerbeyi’ and the ‘Rumeli Beyler-
beyi\ Then came the ‘Sancakbeyler’, governors of provinces,
beneath whom were the actual tenants of the land, the ‘Zaimler’
and the ‘Timarlar’. The whole was organized on the essentially
feudal basis of land and protection in return for service. 1
The first two sultans relied directly upon their brothers and sons
for assistance in the government of their lands. 2 Osman’s brothers
45/Giinduz Alp and 49/Sarubati Savci and their sons were his chief
military aides; 3 he also used both Orhan and 501/Alaeddin in the
administration. At some period before his death, probably in 1320,
Osman seems to have resigned the whole government into the hands
of Orhan. 4 The latter also looked to his brother and his sons for
help: 501/Alaeddin, 5 514/Siileyman Pa§a, and Murad I were all
‘Beylerbeyleri’. In fact this title was at first reserved for the family
of Osman but, when Murad I became sultan, he had no brothers or
sons of an age to help him and the title passed first to Lala §ahin
Pa$a and then to the (Jandarlilar, who later combined it with the
grand vizirate. 6
Murad Fs reign, however, marks a definite change. The state was
1 Gibb and Bowen, i. 137 ff.
2 ‘For in Turkey, even among the Turks themselves, no value is attached to any-
thing but personal merit. The house of Osman is the sole exception to this rule, being
the only family in which birth confers rank/ Busbecq, 23.
3 Sarubati died at the Battle of Domanic in 1287 and 48/Aydogdu at Koyunhisar
in 1302.
4 See p. 54.
5 AlSeddin ibni Osman’s title was ‘Bey’ and he must not be confused with the
Alaeddin Pa$a who was grand vizir; Dam^mend, i. 19.
6 I. A. i. 283, and Gibb and Bowen, i. 139.
5707 C
18 THE PRINCELY GOVERNORATES
no longer to be considered as a possession to be shared by the family
as a whole but was to exist only for the sultan and his sons ; for this
the practical sanction was Fratricide. Henceforward the sultans
associated their sons with them in the government of the provinces
as a form of apprenticeship, during which their ability and prowess
could be studied with an eye to the succession. 1 Von Hammer 2
suggests that Murad’s real aim was to set his sons at a distance from
the central government, where they might have become too power-
ful, but this is a rather over-suspicious interpretation; in any case,
even stronger objections could be raised against putting them in
control of a distant province.
Normally, when a prince reached the age of fourteen or fifteen,
he was sent to the chief town of a province and there he established
his ‘Beylik’, a miniature replica of the administration in the capital.
To advise him there was a senior vizir, usually the one who had
already acted as his ‘Lala’ (tutor); often the young prince’s mother
accompanied him to supervise his harem. Even his ‘Tugra’ (mono-
gram) was in exactly the same form as the reigning sultan’s, and to
him was reserved the title of ‘£elebi Sultan’. 3 Among other restric-
tions he was forbidden to leave his province without precise instruc-
tions from the Divan; it was the breach of this rule which led to the
death of 584/Mahmud ibni Bayezid II. 4
As these princely governors formed the dynastic reserve there
was a certain order of precedence regarding appointments to the
various provinces. At first Amasya seems to have ranked highest, as
an outpost among the semi-independent ‘Beylikler’ of eastern
Anatolia. Karaman, too, was important for its size and historical
prestige as the capital-province of the old Seljuk Empire. But in
later times, as the race for the succession became more vital, the
most sought-after province was Manisa because of its proximity to
Istanbul; it was usually given to the heir-presumptive, although it
1 For a list of the Princely Governorates, see Table II, p. 22.
2 Von Hammer, i. 218.
3 For details of the organization of the Princely Governorates, see Uzun$ar?ih, S.T.
122-30. For the ‘Tugra*, see Wittek, in Byzantion , xviii. 331. There was no rule about
the age-limit: Bayezid II and his brother 571 /Mustafa were appointed even before their
circumcisions in 1457* Eor the ceremonies which took place on their leaving the capital
for the provinces, see Dani$mend, iii. 72. The two sons of Mehmed II, 571 /Mustafa
(see Babinger, Sitt , 229) and 570/Cem were both accompanied by their mothers, as
were the sons of Bayezid II and 606/ Mustafa ibni Suleyman I. A list of the ‘Lala’ are
given in Surreya, iv. 715.
4 Fisher, 104. Selim I did not see his father for twenty-six years.
THE PRINCELY GOVERNORATES
19
was the province of Bursa which had gained the title ‘Hiidaven-
digar’ (royal). Sometimes this matter of precedence was applied
inversely to indicate the disgrace of a prince, as when 151/Hurrem
Sultan persuaded Suleyman I to transfer his son 606/Mustafa from
Manisa to Amasya. 1
There were various extensions to this system of governorates and
quite a number of the sultans’ grandsons in the male line were
granted ‘Sancaklar’; while Selim I ruled at Trabzond his son
Suleyman I was governor first of Bolu and then of Kefe in the
Crimea. 2 There were further grants in favour of grandsons in
the female line, by the marriages of a sultan’s daughters with the
vizirs; 3 but such grandsons did not normally rise above the rank of
‘Sancakbey’ or ‘Kapici-ba$i’, ‘to the end that they may not be apt
for revolution. But their brothers, which their fathers beget by
slaves, may come to be pashas, for they are free from suspicion in
regard they are not of the blood-royal.’ 4
Only one major limitation was enforced ; members of the Otto-
man dynasty could not be governors of any of the provinces in
Rumelia (Europe). This rule only came into force after the Great
Interregnum; prior to that Orhan’s son 514/Suleyman Pa§a had
been appointed ‘Rum Beylerbeyi’ c. 1354, and on his death Murad I
followed him in this position. There does not seem to have been
any specific reason for this prohibition, but perhaps it may be attri-
buted to a distinction between Anatolia as ‘Dar-iil Islam’ (House of
Islam) and Rumelia as ‘Dar-ul Harb’ (House of War). If so, the
implication is that, while sons could be used as rulers of settled
provinces inhabited by Muslims, it might be dangerous to leave
them in permanent command of large bodies of troops on active
service. Granted this was the reason, justification for it can be found
in the one exception: Selim I entirely misused his European com-
mand. Having forced Bayezid II to grant him the ‘Beylik’ of Semen-
dire (Smederovo), he immediately turned the soldiers under his
orders against his father. 5 On the other hand, princes from the
1 See p. 52.
2 See Dam§mend, ii. 3.
3 See p. 97.
4 Withers, in Purchas, 1606. Any such brothers were generally elder brothers; on
marrying a princess, a vizir had to put away his other wives; see p. 98. These limita-
tions had been imposed by Mehmed II in his ‘Kan unname’.
5 See p. 63.
20
THE PRINCELY GOVERNORATES
tributary dynasties in Anatolia were often appointed as ‘Sancak-
beyler 5 in Rumelia, partly to keep them as far as possible from their
own subjects. 1
Further, the princes were repeatedly put in command of military
forces attached to the armies of the sultans or their vizirs, both in
Anatolia and Rumelia. Sometimes they led into battle semi-feudal
contingents from their own provinces ; at others they took command
of a complete wing of the imperial forces. As an alternative the sul-
tans occasionally chose to leave one of their sons as ‘Kaymakam’
(acting-regent) in the capital while they themselves went on cam-
paign. 2 In 1473 Mehmed II took his two eldest sons Bayezid II
and 571/Mustafa to the wars, while leaving 570/Cem as regent in
Istanbul; this suggests that the latter post, given to a younger
son, was considered the less important. The rather different case
where 583/Korkud and 1778/Oguzhan acted as regents for their
respective fathers, Bayezid II and Cem, in 1481, is discussed
elsewhere. 3
There was, of course, always the danger that a prince might abuse
his authority and stir up the provinces against the central govern-
ment. But on the occasions when this did happen, it seems to have
been due, not to the inherent weakness of the governorate system,
but rather to the lack of a definite Law of Succession and to the
influence of the Law of Fratricide. 4 The Interregnum, the distur-
bances at the end of Bayezid IFs reign and those during the rule
of Suleyman I, were essentially aimed, not at overthrowing the
central administration, but at ensuring eventual succession to it.
With the one exception of 570/Cem’s proposal to divide the empire
with Bayezid II, the Ottoman Empire was never faced with the risk
of dismemberment by divided inheritance such as largely ruined
the Carolingian, Later Byzantine, and Seljuk Empires. Where, how-
ever, a sultan felt that any particular prince was likely to prove re-
fractory, he demanded that one of the latter’s sons should remain in
the capital as a hostage for his father’s good behaviour. So it was
1 Murad II appointed 1715/Ali Karamanoglu to Sofya, and his brother 1716/ Isa
to another ‘Sancak’; princes of the Candarogullan received similar appointments.
2 For a list of Regencies and Military Commands, see Tables III and IV, pp. 23, 24.
3 See p. 46.
4 Jonquiere does not allow for this distinction when he writes: ‘Pour consolider son
autorit£, Bayezid II avait partag£ l’administration des provinces entre ses fils et ses
petits-fils: c’etait une faute, et cette mesure n’amena que la guerre civile.’ i. 135.
THE PRINCELY GOVERNORATES
21
that 583/Korkud ibni Bayezid II and 1778/Oguzhan ibni Cem were
in Istanbul at the time of Mehmed IFs death. 1 In passing, it may be
mentioned that this system of hostages was also applied to the semi-
subject ‘Beylikler’ of Anatolia and to the Tartar Hans of the Crimea,
each of whom had to provide a young prince as hostage ; at various
times these youths were educated in the Top-Kapi Sarayi along
with the sons of the sultans. 2
In spite of this, however, disturbances engendered by jealousies
between brothers only seemed to multiply. The sons of Mehmed II,
Bayezid II, and Suleyman I in turn sought to tear each other down
in order to clear their own path to the throne ; some solution had to
be found. First, Selim II decided to limit the number of princely
governorates and only sent out his eldest son Murad III. When
Murad himself came to the throne he also made only one appoint-
ment: his eldest son Mehmed III went to Manisa, while the other
princes remained in the Top-Kapi Sarayi. This was the last of
the princely governorates ‘to be freely granted in preparation for the
vocation of ruler’. 3 Mehmed III made no appointments and in the
next reign — that of Ahmed I— the whole position of the princes was
altered by the non-application of the Law of Fratricide and the
introduction of the ‘Kafes’. 4 It may well be argued that the cure
was worse than the disease; a youth mis-spent in the luxury of the
‘Selamlik’, followed by years of incarceration in the ‘Kafes’, 5 was
the worst possible preparation for those who were to be sultans of
the Ottoman Empire.
The idea of princely governorates was mooted once again in the
nineteenth century, but nothing came of the proposal; Abdiil-
mecid I became so suspicious of his brother Abdiilaziz that he
suggested making him ‘Vali’ (governor) of Trablusgarp — where he
might well have met with a convenient accident! 6
1 See p. 46. If the suggestion in Fisher, 19, is true, that Mehmed II’s last un-
finished campaign was against a rebellious Bayezid, it is strange that 583/Korkud
survived at all. i925/Osman§ah ibni 582/Alem§ah also had to live at the court of
his grandfather, Bayezid II.
2 B. Miller, Palace School , 22.
3 Brockelmann, 329.
4 See p. 32. Uzun^ar^ili, S.T. 120, says that the appointment of the eldest son to the
governorate of Manisa continued for another fifty years, but that a deputy was sent to
administer the province. The last case was that of Mehmed IV, who was nominated at
the age of five; after that the custom lapsed.
5 See Table VI, p. 36.
6 §ehsuvaroglu, Aziz, 15.
22
THE PRINCELY GOVERNORATES
Table II. The Princely Governorates
Prince
i /Osman I.
45/Giindiiz Alp.
2/Orhan.
501/AIaeddin Ali.
3 /Murad I.
510/Halil.
511/ibrahim.
514/Suleyman.
1547/Melik-i Nasir.
4/Bayezid I.
521/Savci.
522/Yakub.
5/Mehmed I.
530/Ertugrul.
532/lsa (A).
537/Musa.
538/Mustafa.
540/Suleyman.
6/Murad II.
5 50/ Ahmed.
551/Kasim.
552/Mahmud.
554/Mustafa.
7/Mehmed II.
5 60/ Ahmed (A).
562/AIaeddin Ali.
— Younger son.
8/Bayezid II.
570/Cem.
57 1 /Mustafa.
9/Selim I.
580/Abdullah.
58 1 /Ahmed.
Governorate and probable dates 1
Karacahisar.
Eski^ehir (1301).
Sultanonii.
Bilecik.
Izmit (1329); Sultanonii (1330); Bursa; Gelibolu (i359)* 2
Izmit (?).
Eski§ehir.
Bolu; Izmit (1330); Bahkesir (133b); Bursa; Gelibolu (1356).
Ankara (1365).
Kutahya (138 1-9). 3
Bursa (1382-5).
Balikesir.
Amasya (i393- J 403); Bursa (1403-13).
Manisa; Balikesir.
Antalya (1390); Balikesir (1402); Bursa (1403).
Kutahya; Bursa (1403-4); Edime (1411-13).
Antalya.
Sivas (1398); Manisa (1400); Edime (1 402-11).
Amasya (1417-21); Manisa (1444-6).
Amasya (1413).
Amasya (-1406).
Amasya (1415).
Isparta (1420).
Amasya (1437-9); Manisa (1439-44, 1446-51).
Amasya (c. 1434-7).
Manisa (i437~9); Amasya (1439-43).
Wallachia. 4
Amasya (1457-81). 5
Kastamonu (1468-74); Konya (1474-81).
Manisa (1457); Konya (1466-74).
Trabzond (1494); Semendire (1511).
Manisa (-1481); Konya (1481-3). 6
Amasya (1482-1 5 13). 7
1 The provinces are sometimes known by other names: Antalya — Teke, Balikesir —
Karesi, Bursa — Hiidavendigar, Edime — Rumeli, Isparta — Hamideli, izmit — Kocaeli,
Kefe- — Kirim, Konya — Karamania, Kutahya — Germiyan, Manisa — Saruhan, Sul-
tanonii — Karacadag. Where only one date is shown, it is the earliest recorded for a
prince being in a particular province. This list agrees largely with that in Uzun9ar§ili,
S.T. 1 17 ff. ; note that it only gives the princes of the male line.
2 In this respect, it is strange to find Jonquiere writing: ‘Murad, jusqu’alors £lev£,
selon les moeurs orientales, dans une claustration absolue, et qui ne voyait d ’autre
perspective a son avenir qu’une servitude perpetuelle ou une mort pr6maturee.’ i. 64.
Also, ‘In his youth Murad I was not allowed to take part in public affairs and was over-
shadowed by his brother Suleyman/ Cam. Med. His. iv. 673. The ‘claustration absolue’
— presumably the ‘Kafes’ — was an anachronism as applied to Murad I; moreover he
held the governorates above.
3 Wittek, Byzantion , xviii. 333, says Bayezid I was the first prince to have a gover-
norate.
4 Cantemir, 108 ; but no indication as to who it was— unlikely.
5 Bayezid II and 571/Mustafa were at their posts before their circumcisions in 1457.
6 Fisher, 27, says 586/§ahin$ah went to Konya in 1482, but ibid. 103, suggests that
Abdullah was there till his death in 1483. 7 Fisher, 15, calls it ‘Masto’.
THE PRINCELY GOYERNORATES
23
Prince
582/Alem§ah.
583/Korkud.
584/Mahmud.
585/Mehmed.
586/$ahin§ah.
1925/Osman.
J 957/Mehmed.
10/ Suleyman I.
1 1 /Selim II.
601/Bayezid.
602/Cihangir.
604/Mehmed.
606/Mustafa.
2094/Orhan.
12/Murad III.
13/Mehmed III.
Governorate and probable dates
Mente^e (c. 1481); Manisa (1507-10).
Manisa (1491-1502); Antalya (1502-9, 1510-11); Manisa
(1511-12). 1
Kastamonu (-1504); Manisa (1504-7).
Manisa (1504); Kefe (1505-7).
Manisa (1481-3); Konya (1483-1511). 2
Cankiri.
Balikesir (1501); Konya (1511-12).
Bolu (1509); Kefe (15 10-12); Manisa (1512-20).
Manisa (1543-58); Konya (1558-9); Kiitahya (1559-66).
Konya (1546); Kiitahya (-1558); Amasya (1558-9).
Haleb.
Manisa (1542-3).
Manisa (1533-41); Amasya (i54i“53)*
Corum (1558-9)-
Ak^ehir (1558-61); Manisa (1561-74). 3
Manisa (1583-95).
Table III. T emporary Regencies of Princes
Prince
Date and place
For
1 /Osman I
— 1281
44/Ertugrul 4
2/Orhan
c. 1320
1 /Osman I
514/Suleyman
c. 1355
2/Orhan
52 1 /Savci
1385 — Bursa
3 /Murad I s
7/Mehmed II
6-1 1. 1444 — Edime
6/Murad II
570/Cem
3. 1473 — Istanbul
7/Mehmed II
583/Korkud
20. 5. 1481 — Istanbul
8/Bayezid II
1778/Oguzhan
26. 5. 1481— Bursa
570/Cem
10/Siileyman I
3. 1514 — Edime
6. 1516 — Edime
9/Selim I
1 1 /Selim II
1548 — Istanbul
10/Suleyman I
601/Bayezid
1549 — Istanbul
1553 — Edime
10/Suleyman I
1 Betw een 1509 and 1510 Korkud fled to Egypt as the result of a rebellion, but was
reinstated. See ‘Korkud’, I. A. vi. 855-9.
2 See above, 580. Abdullah and note.
3 Uzun£ar§ili O.T. hi. i. 42, says he was not appointed until he was eighteen years
old — c. 1564.
4 The first three were the taking over of all authority, consequent on the father's
retirement. Those of Korkud and Oguzhan in 1481 represent the dynastic struggle for
the succession at the death of Mehmed II — see the relevant passages in the chapters on
‘Abdications’ and ‘Succession’. The others were purely military regencies, undertaken
in Istanbul or Edime, while the sultan was on campaign.
5 Savci w r as appointed to Bursa while Murad I w r as fighting in the Balkans ; he took
the opportunity to revolt and w as executed. Cem also revolted, but was forgiven — see
PP- 49, 5i.
N.B. Whilst Mehmed III was on campaign his mother 173/Safiye Valide Sultan w’as
left in Istanbul w ith almost the full powers of a regent.
24
THE PRINCELY GOVERNORATES
Table IV. Military Commands of Princes 1
Prince
Battle or campaign
Date
50/Bay-Hoca
Ermeni Beli
1284/5 (died)
49/Sarubati-Savci
Domani9
1286/8 (died)
48/Aydogdu
Koyunhisar
1301/2 (died)
505/Pazarlu
Pelekanon
1329
514/Suleyman
Ankara
1354
Rumelia
1354-5
3 /Murad I
Rumelia
1359
4/Bayezid I
Konya
1386
Kosova
1389
522/Yakub
Konya
1386
Kosova
1389
540/Suleyman
Bulgaria
1393
Sivas
1398
Ankara
1402
5/Mehmed I
Amasya
1393
Ankara
1402
532/Isa
Ankara
1402
537/MusS
Ankara
1402
538/Mustafa
Ankara
! 1402
7/ Mehmed II
Kosova (2nd)
1448
Albanian Campaign
1450
571/Mustafa
Kireli
1472
Otluk Beli
1473
Cilicia
1474 (died)
8/Bayezid II
Otluk Beli
1473
58 1 /Ahmed
Morea
1500
i
Cilicia
1501
1957/Mehmed
Cilicia
1501
11/Selim II
Danubian Campaign
1537
Buda
i54i
Nahcivan
1553
Pursuit of Bayezid
1559
601/Bayezid
Buda
I54i
602/Cihangir
Nahcivan
1553
604/Mehmed
Danubian campaign
1537
1 This list excludes rebellions and campaigns in own provinces.
IV
THE LAW OF FRATRICIDE
By literal interpretation ‘fratricide’ is the killing of brothers, but
when the word is associated with the history of the House of Osman
it is often used in a wider sense. It is extended to cover the execu-
tion of any male member of the family whose continued existence
constituted a possible threat to the reigning sultan or, in some cases,
to his heir-presumptive. It included the putting to death of fathers,
uncles, nephews, cousins, sons, and grandsons; in the case of the
last two categories, let it be said, it was usually the punishment well
merited by open rebellion. All female members of the family were
exempt from such a fate since the succession could not pass to, or
through, the female line; yet a number of them met violent deaths. 1
Most frequently Fratricide was practised by sultans newly suc-
ceeding to the throne and wishing to strengthen their position
against all rivals; more rarely it was the work of an ageing sultan
preparing the way to the throne for a favourite son. 2 It arose from
a perhaps exaggerated instinct to protect the empire from frag-
mentation, a disease so prevalent among, and often fatal to, oriental
dynasties. The fundamental sanction for such ruthless killing was
the principle that there must be only one supreme ruler ; it was the
betrayal of this principle by 570/Cem, in proposing to divide the
empire with Bayezid II, which proved him unfit to be sultan.
There were isolated cases of Fratricide during the first 150 years
of Ottoman rule but it was only in the reign of Mehmed II that
custom was given legal sanction and promulgated in his famous
‘Kanunname’ as the Law of Fratricide. 3 The text was supported by
1 For example: 85/Maria (B), 112/Anna (B), 118/Irene, 180/Handan, 182/D.,
191/Kosem Mahpeyker, 244/Hadice, and 351/Peykidd; all these were wives.
2 Suleyman I is the typical example; but Bayezid IFs sons suspected his motives in
arranging a great circumcision feast in 1503 and declined the invitations. Fisher, 104.
3 The Turkish text is given in Uzun^ar^ih, S.T. 45 (quoting T.O.E.M . , 1912,
No. 14, App. 27): ‘Her kimseye evladimdan saltanat miiyesser ola karde^lerin nizam-i
alem i^iin katletmek munasiptir, ekser ulema dahi tecviz itmi$tir, amnia amil olalar.’
Gibb and Bowen, i. 36, give a slightly different version; their English version reads:
‘And to whomsoever of my sons the Sultanate shall pass, it is fitting that for the order
of the world he shall kill his brothers. Most of the Ulema allow it. So let them act
on this.’
26
THE LAW OF FRATRICIDE
references to the Koran and the authority of the Ulema, but its
theme was simple : ‘The death of a prince is less regrettable than the
loss of a province/ 1 Mehmed’s successor Bayezid II, being pacific
by nature, would probably have annulled the law had it not been
for Cem’s rebellion ; but this latter showed the Sultan that his own
personal safety and the stability of the Empire alike depended on
the maintenance of the law in its fullest terms.
One result of the law can be traced in the genealogical tables. It
prevented the rise of an ‘aristocracy of blood’ by a severe limitation
of princely families running parallel to the direct line of descent
through the sultans. This was all part of a policy— none the less
effective because it was only implicit — for obliterating as quickly as
possible all traces of the royal family, apart from the reigning
sultan and his direct issue. 2
Almost every traveller and historian, writing about Turkey, has
commented in terms of horror on the terrible end of those princes
subjected to the fate prescribed by this law. Is it not that the writers
have been shocked by the cold-blooded legalization of the execu-
tions rather than by the deaths themselves? When one comes to
examine the lists, there are at most eighty deaths which can be put
to the account of the Law of Fratricide. 3 The real justification for
the law lies in the 650 years of unbroken sovereignty which the
House of Osman enjoyed, and in the comparative freedom of the
Ottoman Empire from internal strife at a time when every country
in western Europe was suffering from repeated civil wars.
If further support be required, it is only necessary to point out
that the sultans were not alone in finding their relatives incon-
venient ; in fact they were following the example of their contem-
poraries, both Christian and Muslim. ‘Pedro of Castile killed his
1 ‘So often as they return to sedition, they shall be subverted therein; and if they
depart not from you, and offer you peace and restrain their hands from warring against
you, take them and kill them wheresoever ye find them.’ From the Koran, quoted in
Gibbons, 180.
2 ‘As another method of preventing the rise of an aristocracy of blood, measures
were devised for putting to death the scions of the ruling dynasty or of levelling the
descendants of royal princesses as quickly as possible into the masses. These were the
well-known Law of Fratricide of Mehmed II, to which the numerous small coffins in
the royal mausoleums bear tragic witness, and the Law of Sancakbey of the same ruler,
by which it was decreed that “the descendants of my daughters must not be appointed
as Beylerbeyleri, but only as Sancakbeyleri’V B. Miller, Palace School , 74. It is only
fair to point out that the high rate of infantile mortality was just as much responsible
for the ‘numerous small coffins’.
3 See Table V, p. 30.
THE LAW OF FRATRICIDE
27
brother Don Fadrique; Andronicus III Comnenus of Trabzond
killed his two brothers Michael and George; and Andronicus III
Paleologus assassinated his brother when his father was dying.’ 1
Fratricide was particularly common among Muslim dynasties because
the practice of polygamy on a large scale led to a dangerous profu-
sion of male heirs. 2 One need not go farther afield than Persia,
where I9i5/§ah Ismail I brought to death most of his younger
brothers. Moreover, one may ask whether Fratricide was any more
cruel than the practice of the Byzantine emperors who blinded or
otherwise disfigured their rivals, thus rendering them technically
and practically unfit to rule, and condemning them to a living death. 3
As a matter of fact, blinding was used on at least three occasions
by the Ottoman sultans; in 1385 Murad I’s son 521/Savci was
punished in this way for rebellion and subsequently died from its
effects; and 537/Emir Musa blinded 1644/Orhan, son of his rival
brother 540/Emir Suleyman, during the Interregnum. Murad II
also blinded three of his brothers: 55o/Amed, 552/Mahmud, and
555/Yusuf.
The method of execution employed in Fratricide was almost
invariably the same. Just as in the West beheading was considered
the most honourable form of capital punishment and was reserved
to those of noble blood, so within the Ottoman Empire death by
strangulation with a silken bow-string (‘Keman-Kiri^i’) was re-
stricted to those of high rank and particularly to members of the
royal family, to the end that blood should not be let. 4 Usually the
execution was carried out by the ‘Cellad-ba$i’ (Chief Executioner),
assisted by mutes attached to the Inner Service of the Saray. In
many cases recourse was first had to the ‘§eyh-iil Islam’ to obtain
1 Gibbons, 180.
2 Uzun^arsih, O.T. ii. 360, n. 1. A modem example of this fruitfulness may be seen
in the large family of Ibn Saud of Arabia.
3 ‘By fear or conscience Michael Paleologus was restrained from dipping his hands
m innocent and royal blood ; but the anxiety of an usurper and a parent urged him to
secure the throne by one of those imperfect crimes so familiar to the modem Greeks.
The loss of sight incapacitated the young prince — John IV Lascaris — for the active
business of the world; instead of the brutal violence of tearing out his eyes, the visual
nerv e was destroyed by the intense glare of a red-hot bason, and John Lascaris was
removed to a distant castle, where he spent many years in privacy and oblivion/
Gibbon, vi. 466.
4 In Evliya, 1. ii. 1 1, however, it says, ‘Osman II . . . was put to death by the compres-
sion of the testicles, a mode of execution reserved by custom to the Ottoman Emperors’,
but there is no corroborative evidence for either the particular or the general statements
thus made.
28 THE LAW OF FRATRICIDE
the issue of a ‘Fetva’ (opinion), which would convey the sanction
of the religious law to the execution.
This is not the place to relate the circumstances of every case of
Fratricide, but some are of more particular interest. The first may
more properly be described as ‘avunculicide’, for it was his uncle
42/Diindar whom Osman I got rid of in 1298; tradition has it that
Osman struck him down at a tribal council for obstructive behaviour
but the real cause was more fundamental. 1 Bayezid I, in the hour
of victory after the Battle of Kosova, ordered the execution of his
brother 522/Yakub, for the latter had shown himself too popular
with the soldiers on account of his skill as a fighter. The murder of
his infant brother 561/Ahmed by Mehmed II at his accession so
shocked the Court that he had to put the blame on the officer who
had carried out his orders, and the latter was executed for treason.
Then there was the long struggle between Selim II and his brothers
whilst their father Suleyman I was still ruling; first 606/Mustafa
was betrayed and executed; later 601 /Bayezid and his sons escaped
to Persia only to be sold back to their death by Sah Tahmasp. 2
Next came the ‘blood-bath’ with which Mehmed III announced
his accession — nineteen brothers and several pregnant ‘Hasekiler’
(favourites) were executed in one day.
Before Osman II left Istanbul on his Polish expedition he
decided that his brother 664/Mehmed had reached a dangerous age
and should be removed, but the ‘§eyh-iil Islam’ refused him a ‘Fetva’;
however, the ‘Rumeli Kazaskeri’ (military judge), Ta^kopriiluzade
Kemaleddin Efendi, granted one in the hope of winning favour
and promotion. 3 Murad IV executed three of his brothers during
his reign, as a result of the troubles of 1632 ; 4 on his death-bed he
tried unsuccessfully to commit dynastic suicide by having his last
surviving brother and sole heir, Ibrahim, assassinated but in this he
was thwarted by their mother, 191/Kosem Mahpeyker Valide Sul-
tan. 5 The last case of Fratricide was when Mahmud II decided on
the execution of his brother Mustafa IV, who was becoming the
1 See p. 5.
2 Bayezid’s death was a tragedy for the Ottoman Empire as it left the sottish Selim II
as sole heir — all hopes had been cast on 6oi/Bayezid.
3 Uzunsar^ih, 0 ,T. hi. i. 135,
4 Ibid. 190.
5 Mehmed IV might have done the same thing — Uzun^ar^ili, O.T. in. i. 509, n. 1
With regard to the events of 1640-8, Gibb and Bowen, i. 37, are a little confused*
see p. 13, note 2.
THE LAW OF FRATRICIDE
29
focal point for various rebellious movements; for a time this left
Mahmud the only male member of the family.
Equally interesting are some of the occasions when the Law of
Fratricide was not invoked. One wonders what it was that kept
Mehmed I from attempting to remove his brother 537/Musa during
the years they were together just after the Battle of Ankara; or,
alternatively, what restrained Musa. 1 The reasons for Ahmed I
sparing his brother Mustafa I have been considered elsewhere, 2 but
here is an interesting contemporary explanation: ‘And at this day
the Grand Sultan hath a brother [Mustafa] of this Society [the
Mevlevi Dervishes] that liveth in the Seraglio, whom he hath often
intended to put to death . . . but he [Ahmed] hath happened to fall
into some bitter disease whensoever he hath thought upon any such
matter, which is the reason that he suffereth him to live/ 3 Selim III
could have saved himself from deposition and death had he taken
the opportunity, when threatened, to kill his cousins Mustafa IV
and Mahmud II— just as the latter did actually kill Mustafa IV a
few months later. Lastly, one can hardly understand how Abdiil-
hamid II restrained himself from killing Murad V, when one con-
siders the three separate attempts made to replace the latter on the
throne ; 4 perhaps he was moved by fear of public opinion and more
particularly of international repercussions through the influence of
the Masonic movement, for Murad was a member of the Grand
Orient Lodge.
1 Wittek, in Belleten, 27. 578 and n. 30.
2 See p. 10.
3 Coryates in Purchas, 1822.
4 ‘Among the archives can be seen several “Fetva” that Abdiilhamid obtained in
order to kill Sultan Murad * — but he never acted on them; see Uzun^ar^ili in Belleten y
38. 320, n. 3. The three attempts to replace Murad V were those organized by Stav-
rides, Ali Suavi, and Skaliyeri-Aziz; they are dealt with by Uzun^ar^ili in Belleten ,
respectively 32. 589, 29. 71, and 30. 245, and in I. A. iii. 391. See also Melek, in R.T.M.
ii. 761, S.R., in R.T.M. iv. 2374, and Inal, Sadrazamlar y 766 ff., for Ali Suavi.
30
THE LAW OF FRATRICIDE
Table V. List of Fratricides
Sultan
Princes executed
Date
Relationship
1 /Osman I
42/Diindar
1298
Uncle
3 /Murad I
5ii/lbrahim
1360
Brother
1 547/Melik-i Nasir
1365
Nephew, son of 514/
Suleyman
521/Sava
I 3 8 5
Son — rebellion
4/Bayezid I
‘Devr-i Fetret':
522/Yakub
6. 1389
Brother
537/Musa
532/lsa
1404-5
Brother. (Or by Meh-
med I)
5 40/ Suleyman
17. 2. 1411
Brother
5/Mehmed I
537/Musa
5 - 7 - 1413
Brother
6/Murad II 1
538/Mustafa
1422-3
Uncle — rebellion
554/Mustafa
12. 1423
Brother — rebellion
562/Alaeddin Ali (?)
6. 1443
Son
1727/ss. (2)
6. 1443
Grandsons, sons of 562/
Alaeddin Ali
7/Mehmed II
56 1 /Ahmed
2. 1451
Brother
564/Orhan (?)
9. 2. I45I |
Brother
8/Bayezid II
1778/Oguz
12. 1482 \
Nephews, sons of 570/
1773/Eyub
1484/
Cem
584/Mahmud
1507
Son — rebellion
585/Mehmed
3 - 1507
Son — rebellion
586/§ahin§ah
2. 7 - 1511
Son — rebellion
9/Selim I
8/Bayezid II (?)
16. 5. 1512
Father
i925/Osman$ah
16. 12. 1512
Nephew, son of 582/
Alem^ah
1936/Emir
16. 12. 1512 \
Nephews, sons of 584/
1937/Musa
l6. 12. 1512 [
Mahmud
1940/Orhan
l6. 12. 1512 )
1955/Alaeddin
l6. 12. 1512 ]
Nephews, sons of 586/
1957/Mehmed
16. 12. 1512 /
§ahin§ah
i
583/Korkud
2. 1513
Brother
j
58 1 /Ahmed
24. 4. 1513
Brother
1917/Osman
24 . 4.1513
Nephew’, son of 581/
Ahmed
590/Abdullah
20 . II. 1514
Son— rebellion
59 1 /Mahmud
l 20 . II. I514
Son — rebellion
592/Murad
20. II. 1514
Son — rebellion
1912/Kasim
29. I. 1518
Nephew’, son of 581/
! Ahmed
10/Siileyman I
1774/Murad 2
24. 12. 1522
Nephew’, son of 570/Cem
i 775 /Cem
1776/S.
; 24. 12. 1522 )
24. 12. 1522/
1
Sons of 1774/Murad
606/Mustafa
6. 10. 1553
Son — rebellion
21 18/Mehmed
IO. 1553
Grandson, son of 606/
Mustafa
1 At his accession, Murad II also blinded his three brothers, 550/Ahmed, 552/
Mahmud, and 555/Yusuf; they died of plague at Bursa in 1429.
2 Murad and his two sons were captured at the Siege of Rhodes.
THE LAW OF FRATRICIDE
3i
Sultan
Princes executed
Date
Relationship
2095 /Osman
1560
Grandson, son of 601/
Bayezid
601/Bayezid
25. 9. 1561
Son — rebellion
2090/Abdullah
25. 9- 1561]
2091/Mahmud
25. 9. 1561 1
Grandsons, sons of 601/
2092/Mehmed
25. 9* 1561 I
Bayezid
2094/Orhan
25. 9. 1561J
12/Murad III
610/Abdullah
21. 12. 1574
Brother
61 i/Cihangir
21. 12. 1574
Brother
613/Mustafa
21. 12. 1574
Brother
6 1 4/ Osman
21. 12. 1574
Brother
615/Suleyman
21. 12. 1574
Brother
13/Mehmed up
620/Abdullah
28. I. 1595
Brother
62 1 /Abdurrahman
28. I. 1595
Brother
623/Alaeddin
28. I. 1595
Brother
624/Alem§ah
28. I. 1595
Brother
625/Ali
28. 1. 1595
Brother
1
626/Bayezid
28. I. 1595
Brother
628/Cihangir
28. I. 1595
Brother
629/Hasan
28. I. 1595
Brother
630/Hiiseyin
28. 1. 1595
Brother
631/Ishak
28. I. 1595
Brother
632/Korkud
28. I. 1595
Brother
633/Mahmud
28. I. 1595
Brother
634/Murad
28. I. 1595
Brother
635/Mustafa
28. I. 1595
Brother
636/Osman
28. I. 1595
Brother
637/Omer
28. I. 1595
Brother
638/Selim
28. I. 1595
Brother
640/Yakub
28. I. 1595
Brother
64 1 /Yusuf
28. I. 1595
Brother
652/Selim
20. 4. 1597
Son — rebellion
65 1 /Mahmud
7. 6. 1603
Son — rebellion
16/Osman II
664/Mehmed
12. 1. 1621
Brother
1 5 /Mustafa I
667/S.
1.6. 1622 \
Nephews — sons of 14/
(Reign B)
668/S.
1.6. 1622/
Ahmed I
17/Murad IV
660 Bayezid
26. 8. 1635
Brother
666/Suleyman
26. 8. 1635
Brother
663 /Kasim
17. 2. 1638
Brother
19/Mehmed IV
1 8/ Ibrahim
18. 8. 1648
Father
25/Osman III
742/Mehmed
2. i. 1756
Cousin — son of 23/
Ahmed III
29/Mustafa IV
28/Selim III
28. 7. 1808
Cousin
30/Mahmud II
29/Mustafa IV
17. 11. 1808
Brother
1 Mehmed III is also said to have executed fifteen slave-women, pregnant by his
father.
V
THE ‘KAFES’
Until the end of the sixteenth century the sons of a sultan used
to be transferred from the harem to the ‘Selamhk’ (men’s quar-
ters) of the Saray at about eight years of age; there a further period
of four to eight years was spent. After that, as we have seen, the
young princes were sent out to serve an apprenticeship as provin-
cial governors. On the death of the father, one of the sons succeeded
to the throne as sultan, while his brothers and nephews were put to
death as soon as possible. With the abolition of the princely gover-
norates and the almost complete suspension of the Law of Fratri-
cide at the end of the sixteenth century, revolutionary changes in
the internal organization of the ‘Selamhk’ became necessary.
To begin with, the sons remained in the men’s quarters of the
Saray during the lifetime of their fathers, though probably they
retained limited contacts with the harem through their mothers. At
a sultan’s death all his sons were transferred to the ‘Kafes’ (cage),
a kiosk or series of kiosks within the Fourth Court of the Top-Kapi
Saray i . 1 Presumably the very young sons — those under eight years
of age — accompanied their mothers into retirement in the Eski
Saray and stayed there until they reached that age, when they also
were taken to the ‘Kafes’. There the unfortunate princes remained
until their deaths ; if, in the meantime, they inherited the throne,
they returned to the full life of the court. Those most to be pitied
are surely the half-dozen sultans who, having once escaped from
the rigours of life in the ‘Kafes’, were later deposed and returned to
spend the rest of their days in its grim surroundings.
Existence in the 'Kafes’ was extremely miserable, although
Dallam 2 is mistaken in saying that it had been built with the special
intention of providing a place of secret execution. Sometimes, how-
ever, when the troops were in a rebellious mood, they would insist
on the sultan producing the princes from the ‘Kafes’ just to make
1 Uzunfar§ih, S.T. 113-16. The ‘Kafes’ was also known as the ‘$im§irlik\ from the
box-trees growing there.
2 Dallam, 62-63.
THE ‘KAFES’
33
sure they had not been disposed of. 1 Its inhabitants were treated
more like prisoners than princes; they had no liberty of movement,
and very little instruction was provided for them, when young,
which might fit them to rule over a great empire. As they grew older
some were allowed female companions, but extreme precautions
were taken to guard against the possibility of any children being
born in the ‘Kafes’. 2 Altogether, between the reigns of Selim II and
Mahmud II (1566-1839) 115 sons of the sultans died without leav-
ing any children, because of their own early deaths or the rules of
the ‘Kafes’.
Expressed briefly, the contrast between the old system and the
new was this. Before 1600 a prince could grow up in his provincial
governorate, have a family and hope for the throne — or fear death
for himself and his sons; after 1600, unless he reached the throne,
he would never have a family, but there was little fear of his meeting
a violent death. The one clear point is that, had Fratricide and
'collateral birth-control’ existed side by side, the dynasty itself would
very soon have been wiped out. 3
As was the case with Fratricide, so also with regard to the ‘Kafes’,
writers of travel memoirs and history books have been so attracted
by the melancholy ‘romanticism’ of this institution that they have
tended to exaggerate the extent of its application. Apart from the
sixteen sultans from Mustafa I to Mahmud II — that is, including
Mehmed IV who directly succeeded his father but entered the
‘Kafes’ on his deposition — the tables show only seventeen clear
cases of princes confined in the ‘Kafes’. 4 The reason for this is to be
1 In 1632 the Janissaries forced Murad IV to show them his brothers: ‘The princes
are our lord’s sons; we have lost confidence in you, and just as you killed Hiisrev Pa§a,
so you will destroy the princes: bring out the princes and show them to us now.’
When he refused, they threatened to depose him : ‘If you don’t do as we say, you are no
further use to us as Sultan’, and he gave in — see Uzun9ar§ih, S.T. 227, and O.T. in. i.
190, 199.
2 D’Ohsson, i. 284 ff. : ‘On a soin de ne composer le harem des princes collat^raux que
de sept k huit jeunes filles esclaves auxquelles on fait avaler divers breuvages propres
a tarir dans leurs flancs les sources de la fecondite. Si ces moyens denatures sont
insuffisans, si ces infortunees ont la malheur de concevoir, le jour de la naissance de
l’enfant est en meme temps celui de sa mort, la sage-femme qui le re£oit est tenue au
risque de sa tete de ne pas le laisser vivre. Elle n’ensanglante cependant jamais ses mains,
ce seroit un attentat contraire au respect du au sang royal, mais elle s’mterdit ses fonc-
tions, elle ne noue pas le cordon ombilical. Tel est le genre de mort reserve a ces
tendres.’ Very occasionally a child was successfully smuggled out and reared by a foster-
mother; the best-known example is i302 / Durru5ehvar, daughter of Abdulhamid I,
known also as ‘Ahretlik Hamm’ (Adopted Lady). 3 See Giese, 254.
4 bor the sultans, see Table VI, p. 36. The other princes were: Ahmed l’s sons:
5707
D
34
THE ‘KAFES’
found in the effects of the system on the birth-rate. Confinement in
the ‘Kafes’ so weakened the virility of those princes who later became
sultans that either they were completely impotent or they fathered
such feeble children that the majority of the latter died in infancy. 1
The ‘Kafes 1 was thus a vicious spiral; a sultan, weakened by
years of virtual imprisonment, gave birth to weak sons, who in
turn were confined and further deteriorated. The surprising thing
is that occasionally a moderately successful sultan did emerge ; for
the most part they were psycho-pathological cases, completely un-
fitted for the task of ruling an empire. It would be difficult to
separate the specific effects, but the final result was the product
of two distinct factors : the age of the prince when he entered the
‘Kafes’ and the length of his confinement. 2
It is quite clear, however, that slight relaxations in the regulations
were sometimes permitted, usually in favour of a full brother of the
sultan, particularly if their mother was still alive. Proof of this can
be found in that Mehmed IV died at Edirne some five years after
his deposition 3 while Ahmed II, Mustafa II, and Ahmed III were
all three acclaimed as sultans at Edirne. These three princes had
been sent to Edirne in 1691 when Suleyman II was preparing to go
on campaign, 4 but one is left to guess the reason for their absence
from the ‘Kafes’ in the Top-Kapi Sarayi in Istanbul. Nor is there
sufficient evidence to show whether these three, as heirs-presump-
tive, were the only princes so favoured. But it was not until the end
of the eighteenth century that the whole system was relaxed.
When Selim Ill’s father died, his uncle Abdiilhamid I allowed
him complete liberty, so that he was even able to communicate with
Louis XVI of France. The immediate effects of this shone clearly
through Selim’s courageous efforts to reorganize the Ottoman
Empire when he himself came to the throne. 5 Mahmud II, pre-
660/Bayezid, 662/Huseyin, 663/Kasim, 664/Mehmed, and 666/SiiIeyman; ibrahim’s
sons: 691/Cihangir, 693/Orhan, and 695/Selim; Ahmed IPs son: 710/lbrahim;
Mustafa IPs sons: 726/Murad (B) and 727/Selim; Ahmed I IPs sons: 734/Bayezid,
738/Mahmud, 742/Mehmed (D), 745/Numan, 748/Seyfeddin, and 749/Suleyman.
1 See p. 102. ‘Some of the sultans, after being imprisoned for a very long time as
heirs in dank, sunless rooms, had no manly powers left when they came to the throne •
there was no hope of their producing children.’ R.T.M. i. 203.
2 See Table VI, p. 36. For example, Ibrahim was only two years old when he entered
the ‘Kafes’, while Mustafa II was twenty-three and by that time had received a good
education at court.
3 Dani ? mend, iii. 474. 4 Uzun^ili, O.T. in. i. 545.
5 Karal, O.T. v, passim , and Uzun^ar^ili, in Belleten , 5-6, 191 ff.
THE ‘KAFES’
35
sumably, also received a measure of liberty which helped to make
him an enlightened and progressive sultan. With the passage of the
nineteenth century the ‘Kafes’ in its specific form gradually ceased
to exist. Abdiilmecid I directly succeeded his father at the age of
sixteen and he gave his only surviving brother Abdiilaziz a great
measure of liberty, though restricting him to living with his mother. 1
In fact, Abdiilaziz’s first son, 844/Yusuf Izzeddin, was born in 1857,
four years before his father became sultan; he thus achieved the
distinction of being the first child of a non-reigning male member
of the dynasty, since the reign of Suleyman I, to be acknowledged
and allowed to live. When Abdiilaziz came to the throne he insti-
tuted an even more progressive regime; under watchful supervision
his nephews were allowed almost complete freedom to take part in
the life of the capital and to maintain their own private households
outside the court, 2 though, under the influence of his mother, he would
not allowthem to have more than one child. 3 Abdiilaziz eventooktwo
of his nephews, Murad V and Abdiilhamid II, with him when he
went to visit Paris and London in 1 867. Towards the end of his reign,
however, he received reports that his nephews, taking advantage of
their liberty, were beginning to indulge in politics, and Abdiilaziz
then took measures which restricted their freedom considerably. 4
Abdiilhamid II went a stage further in allowing the princes of
the dynasty to set up their own establishments, to marry and have
children — who were educated in the palace school. 5 But with this
apparent liberty in private affairs went a complete ban — backed by
typical Hamidian police supervision — on anything resembling poli-
tical activity, and the same attitude was maintained, though with
steadily lessening vigour, by the last two sultans. 6
In the nineteenth century the treatment meted out to a deposed
sultan also underwent a steady improvement. To begin with,
Abdiilaziz was transferred to the Top-Kapi Sarayi, but he was so
miserable there and wrote such pathetic letters of appeal to Murad V,
that the latter arranged for his immediate transfer to the Feriye
Sarayi on the Bosphorus ; however, even there the ex-Sultan was not
1 ^ehsuvaroglu, Aziz, 6, and Brockelmann, 368.
2 Murad V, while prince, had a house at Kurbagahdere, Kadikoy.
3 See Uzun^ar^ih in Belleten, 30. 333, for the case of Murad V’s child.
4 See s>ehsuvaroglu, Aziz , 54. These restrictions were largely responsible for Murad
V’s mental disorders, since they increased his indulgence in alcohol.
5 See Hayder, 58 ff.
6 A typical account of this is given by H. Amca, in T.D. iv. 1359.
THE ‘KAFES’
36
happy and within two days he had committed suicide. 1 Following
on his deposition Murad V spent twenty-eight years in close con-
finement in the Qiragan Sarayx, but at least he was allowed to keep
his family around him. When Abdiilhamid’s turn came, the Young
Turks felt he was too dangerous to be kept in the capital and so he
was exiled to the Villa Allatini at Salonika. On the outbreak of the
Balkan Wars it was feared he might fall into enemy hands, so in
1912 he was brought back to the Beylerbeyi Sarayi in Istanbul; 2 in
both places he was permitted the company of his immediate family.
In 1922, when the last sultan, Mehmed VI, was demoted to caliph,
he fled the country; seventeen months later Caliph Abdulmecid (II)
was deposed and expelled from the country with all that remained
of the royal family. 3 Since then they have lived in exile in the south
of France and elsewhere.
Table VI. Sultans confined in the ‘Kafes’
Sultan
Age at first
entry
Period spent in ‘ Kafes 9
Before reign
1 After reign
Total
15/Mustafa I
12 y.
14 y.
! 4 y. and 15 y.
33 y*
16/Osman II
14 y.
3 m -
—
3 m.
17/Murad IV
5 y-
6 y.
—
6 y.
1 8/ Ibrahim
2 y.
22 y.
—
22 y.
19/Mehmed IV
46 y.
—
5 y.
5 y.
20/Suleyman II
6 y.
39 y-
—
39 y-
21/Ahmed II
5 y.
43 y>
—
43 y.
22/Mustafa II
23 y.
7 y*
4 m.
7 y. 4 m.
23 /Ahmed III
14 y.
16 y.
6 y.
22 y.
24/ Mahmud I
7 y-
27 y.
—
27 y.
25/Osman III
5 y*
51 y*
—
51 y.
26/Mustafa III
14 y- |
27 y-
—
27 y.
27/Abdulhamid I
5 y*
43 y-
—
43 y.
28/Selim III
12 y.
15 y-
1 y.
16 y.
29/Mustafa IV
10 y.
18 y.
4 m.
18 y. 4 m.
30/Mahmud II
4 y-
19 y.
—
19 y.
32/Abdulaziz
9 y.
22 y. 4
—
22 y.
33/Murad V
21 y.
15 y.
28 y.
43 y.
34/Abdulhamid II
19 y.
15 y.
9 y.
24 y.
3 5 /Mehmed V
17 y.
48 y.
—
48 y.
36/Mehmed VI
4 m.
57 y-
(3 y-) 5
60 y.
37/Abdulmecid (II)
8 y.
46 y.
(20 y.)
66 y.
1 See §ehsuvaroglu, Aziz t 114-25.
2 S. Lozan, in R.T.M . i. 1, describes the journey back to Istanbul.
3 See T.T.K. 141-57; and also below, p. 74, note 3.
4 Numbers 32 to 37 were comparatively free before their reigns began.
5 Numbers 36 and 37 were in exile for the years after their reigns.
VI
ACCESSIONS
The ideas implicit in ‘Le roi est mort. Vive le roif cannot be trans-
ferred literally to the history of the Ottoman sultans. To begin
with, half the sultans reached the throne through the deposition
and not the death of their predecessors. Secondly, and of much
greater significance, there was often a slight interregnum following
the death of a sultan, at least during the Early Period.
In considering the first three centuries of the Ottoman dynasty,
it is a moot point exactly when a sultan did begin to reign. In all the
tables appended to this book the Date of Accession is given on the
assumption that there was no period of interregnum ; but in actual
practice there was quite often an interval ranging from ten to fifty
days during which the throne was vacant and the demise of its
previous occupant was carefully concealed . 1 In dealing with the
succession it has been seen that, for the sake of public order, it was
essential for the death of a sultan to be kept secret until such time
as his successor could be recalled from his governorate and reach the
capital for his own proclamation. The nearest of the princely gover-
norates were Manisa and Kiitahya, at least four days' journey from
Istanbul, so that concealment was necessary for a minimum of nine
to ten days. It sometimes happened, however, that the heir-pre-
sumptive had been appointed to a distant province in eastern Ana-
tolia, or that the sultan died on campaign, when a much longer
period had to elapse. Incidentally, the message received by a prince,
summoning him to assume the throne, was in itself a dangerous
instrument for, since its whole object was to maintain the secret of
the sultan's death, there could be little or no circumstantial evidence
to support it. Many a prince must have hesitated before obeying its
summons, fearing lest it be a trap set by a still-living sultan to test
his loyalty.
The significance of this interregnum is not just that the new sul-
tan had not yet sat upon his throne but that — in a more strictly
constitutional sense — until he did sit upon that throne and receive
1 See Table VII, p. 44-
ACCESSIONS
38
the acclamation of his people, he was not properly sultan. This
stems from the idea expressed in a previous chapter 1 that all the sons
of a sultan had an equal right to the succession and that only when
one of them had been acclaimed could he place himself above his
brothers and arrange for their execution. Here, then, is further
evidence of the vaguely democratic nature of the sultanate.
The clearest example of this uncertainty in the succession, and
one which was unique because of the lapse of time involved, was
the Great Interregnum — ‘Devr-i Fetret’ — from 1402 to 1413. The
Battle of Ankara and Timur's subsequent campaign left the Otto-
man Empire in fragments, each one ruled over by a different son of
Bayezid I; in fact, one of the things which seem to have driven
Bayezid to suicide was the news that, while he was still alive and
a prisoner in the hands of Timur, his sons had already begun to
quarrel over the inheritance. 2 None was immediately strong enough
to assert himself over his brothers and reunite the Empire; nor,
presumably, would Timur and his lieutenants have countenanced
such a procedure; ‘divide et impera’. The four brothers — 532/lsa,
540/Siileyman, 537/Musa, and Mehmed I — fought each other, came
to terms, and fought again, but eleven years were to pass before the
youngest, Mehmed, stood alone in full and undisputed possession of
the Ottoman Empire. Then, and only then, did he take the title of
sultan; as long as the inheritance was divided the brothers had had
to be content with the rank of ‘Emir' (prince), even though they
had enjoyed a sultan’s privileges of Prayer and Money. It is for this
reason that 540/Emir Suleyman is not listed among the sultans as
Suleyman I, although he is said to have been properly enthroned at
Bursa, when he passed through the town in 1402, escaping from
Timur.
The same thing can be seen in the story of events following on
the death of Mehmed II in 1481. There were two candidates for the
throne: Bayezid in Amasya and 570/Cem in Konya; it was a matter
of great uncertainty which would first get the news of his father’s
death and be able to reach the capital before the other. Being the
elder by twelve years, Bayezid had for long been considered the
natural successor to Mehmed II, and it was he that the vizirs sum-
moned to the throne. But Cem also had his supporters, chief among
them Grand Vizir Mehmed Karamani Pa§a who represented the
1 See p. 5. 2 See Koprulu, in Belleten, 2. 591 and 27. 591.
ACCESSIONS
39
'Ulema' — the Muslim Institution — as distinct from the military
leaders, most of whom were related by marriage to Bayezid. 1 Some
say, even, that Mehmed II — though he was powerless to fix the
succession — would have preferred Cem as his heir and that the
expedition the Sultan had been preparing at the time of his death
was aimed at the destruction of Bayezid. 2 Be that as it may, the
Grand Vizir sent secret messages to Cem and did everything to
forward his cause; but the Janissaries discovered what was afoot,
revolted, and assassinated Mehmed Pa$a. They then set up Baye-
zid’s son 583/Korkud to act as regent until such time as Bayezid
could reach Istanbul from Amasya. Cem’s son 1778/Oguzhan, who,
like Korkud, had been held in the capital by Mehmed II as a hostage
for his father's good behaviour, escaped to Bursa where in turn
Cem’s supporters declared him regent. 3 In the end Bayezid reached
Istanbul, was proclaimed sultan and set out to crush what he
naturally considered to be rebellion on Cem’s part; the campaign
ended with Cem fleeing into exile. But it is quite clear that had Cem
been able to reach the capital first or possessed the stronger army,
he would have become sultan instead of Bayezid. As it was, he had
been able to set up a rival sultanate at Bursa with all the symbols of
authority, 4 and maintain his position for eighteen days.
For the same reasons the sons of Bayezid II, and later those of
Suleyman I, began manoeuvring for positions among the different
princely governorates. Each was trying to ensure that he would be
the first to receive news of his father’s death and thus be able to
reach the capital before his brothers; until one of them did reach
the capital all had an equal claim to be sultan and none of them was
actually sultan. When Suleyman I eventually died only one son
remained and Selim II appears to have proceeded in more leisurely
fashion from his governorate to Istanbul where he was proclaimed.
Then he continued his journey on to Belgrade, where he encoun-
tered the army returning from Sigetvar and still in ignorance of
Suleyman’s death — thanks to the skilful concealment organized by
the Grand Vizir, 2162/Sokollu Mehmed Pa§a. The latter wished
1 See Fisher, 17 and n. 33.
2 Ibid. 16-19. Bayezid vowed to build a mosque in Amasya if he did become sultan —
ibid. 15, n. 17. Dam$mend, i. 356, suggests that Mehmed II actually appointed Cem
to be his heir, but Unver, Nichemedy, 13, says Mehmed nominated Bayezid as his
successor.
3 See p. 47.
4 See E.I. i. 1034.
ACCESSIONS
40
Selim to submit to a second enthronement, but the Sultan refused.
He went further and tried to avoid payment of the usual bribes, but
on their return to Istanbul the troops refused to let Selim enter the
Saray until the normal disbursements and promotions had been
made. 1 In 1574, however, when news reached Murad III that his
father was dead, he rushed from Manisa to Mudanya and from
there crossed the Marmora to Istanbul in an open sixteen-oared
boat, in the teeth of a winter’s gale. 2 Such was the urgency he felt
to reach the capital and be acclaimed by the troops and governing
body, before they raised up one of his five brothers, who had never
left the Saray. 3
After 1600, when the sultans practically ceased to go to war and
all the possible heirs to the throne were shut up in the ‘Kafes’, these
unseemly struggles ceased to take place and there was no longer any
interval before the proclamation of the new sultan. On the other
hand, there was certainly a great deal of intrigue within the harem
as to whose son was to succeed. On the death or deposition of a
sultan, his successor was brought from the gloom of the ‘Kafes’ by
the ‘Kizlar Agasi’ (Master of the Women) and enthroned in the
‘Arz Odasi’ (Throne Room or Room of Petitions). It is said that
Ibrahim refused to leave his cell in the ‘Kafes’ until he had received
definite proof that his brother was dead ; like doubting Thomas, he
wished to touch Murad’s corpse. Mahmud II slid down off the roof-
tops, where he was being chased by would-be assassins, directly
into the ‘Arz Odasi’ when he saw his rescuers in the courtyard. 4
There, or in front of the Third Gate of the Saray — ‘Bab-es
Sa’adet’ (Gate of Felicity) — the new sultan sat to receive the homage
of the court; this was the ceremony known as ‘Biat’ (allegiance),
during w r hich all the notables kissed the hem of the sultan’s robe
and swore fealty. 5 This was followed by a ceremonial assembly of
1 A detailed account, based on Selaniki, is given in Uzun^ar^ih, O.T. ni. i. 1-5.
2 This was a ‘kayik’ belonging to Tevkii Feridun Bey; Murad could not make con-
tact with the Kapudan Papa’s big ‘kadirga’ (galley).
3 The replacement of the governorates by the ‘Kafes* system was one of the main
reasons why the later sultans almost never went on campaign ; they were afraid to leave
possible rivals in the capital. Hence Osman II executed his eldest brother 664/Mehmed
before setting out against Poland in 1621.
4 See p. 68. Suleyman II also showed great reluctance to put his trust in the ‘Kizlar
Agasi’; see Uzun^ar^ih, O.T . ill. i. 508.
5 At least two sultans — Ahmed III and Selim III — accepted their depositions with
good grace and were the first to pay homage to their successors. 1 100 Mihrimah Sultan
was the first to greet her brother Selim II.
ACCESSIONS
4i
the Divan, at which new appointments were announced and presents
were distributed. At the same time orders were given for the mint-
ing of a new coinage, which should bear the new sultan’s name,
titles, and accession date . 1 Then the sultan, newly come from years
of confinement in the ‘Kafes’, retired to enjoy the freedom and
pleasures of his harem.
Some five to fifteen days later the sultan proceeded to the ‘Tiirbe’
(mausoleum) of Halid ibn Zayd Abu Ayyub al-Ansari at Eyiib on
the Golden Horn. There took place the ceremony of ‘Kill? Ku§an-
masi’ (Girding of the Sword), which corresponded to a European
coronation . 2 Usually the sultan went by boat to the landing-stage
at Eyiib and returned on horseback through the streets of Istanbul,
visiting the tombs of Mehmed II, Bayezid II, Selim I, and Suley-
man I on the way. Sometimes the route was reversed, but always
it was an occasion for much pomp and circumstance.
The ceremony, as performed at Eyiib, was instituted by Meh-
med II just after the capture of Constantinople, but the girding
itself had probably been performed in earlier times both at Bursa
and Edirne. The sword to be used was chosen from among several
preserved in the Treasury, some sultans electing to be girded with
more than one , 3 and the actual ceremony was performed in privacy,
almost secrecy. Many accounts, particularly Western, affirm that
the girding itself was always performed by the ‘§eyh’ of the Mev-
levi Dervishes, but careful examination shows that this was hardly
ever so. As with so many other institutions, there was no exact rule
— on several occasions advantage was taken of the presence of a
particularly holy man — but in normal circumstances there were
two participants: the ‘^eyh-iil-tslam’ (Mufti) representing the
Ulema, and the ‘Silahdar Agasi’ (Sword-bearer) representing the
imperial household. From the time of Ibrahim, three further pro-
tagonists appear; this sultan had favoured the Mevlevi Dervishes
1 In the case of some of the early sultans the minting was delayed until the return
to the capital: Bayezid Ts first coins were dated 1390.
2 The significance of this ceremony — also known by the Arabic name, ‘Taklid-i
Seyf ' — is fully dealt with in Hasluck, 604-22. See also §ehsuvarogIu, in R.T.M . i. 270.
Ahmed II, Mustafa II, and Ahmed III all came to the throne at Edirne and the cere-
monies were performed in the palace there; the first two were girded with the sword in
the Eski Cami — see Uzun^ar^ih, S.T . 11 (where he calls it ‘Kihwg Ku$anmasi’).
3 These were the swords of the Prophet Muhammed, of Halid ibn-i Velid, of the
Caliph Omar, of Osman I, and of Selim I. Mahmud II was girded with the Prophet’s
sw ord on his right side and Osman Ts on his left.
42
ACCESSIONS
and at Mehmed IV’s girding there was present Mevlevi Dervi$
Mehmed Pa§a. He probably gained privileges for his Order, so that
the ‘§eyh’ of the Mevlevi should perform the girding; but this
intrusion of the Mevlevi was apparently resented both by the
Ulema and the Janissaries (who had strong associations with the
rival Bektashi sect). The participation of the ‘Yeni-£eri Agasi’ (Chief
of the Janissaries) was, however, equally resented in some quarters
and it was agreed that, as a compromise, the main role in the cere-
mony should be played by the ‘Nakib-iil E$raf’ (Chief of the
Descendants of the Prophet). If this arrangement was broken on
more than one occasion it was because of the temporary predomi-
nance of the Ulema, Mevlevi, or Janissary-Bektashi elements. 1
In connexion with the girding, one or two details are of interest.
Ahmed I is said by Naima to have insisted on girding himself, just
as he had announced his own accession to the acting grand vizir. 2
Murad V, during his three months’ reign, never recovered sufficient
use of his mental faculties to make the journey to Eyiib. Mehmed V
was so fat that the ‘§eyh-iil Islam’ Sahip Molla Efendi could not get
his arms round the Sultan to gird him properly and the sword
nearly fell to the ground; luckily 26i8/$erif Ali Hayder, who was
standing close by, was able to prevent such an ill-omened
accident. 3 Abdiilmecid (II) being only caliph, it was not permitted
for him to be girded with the Sword.
Particularly during the Early Period of the dynasty, an accession
was announced to all the neighbouring rulers, who in return sent
letters of congratulation and rich presents. When the Ottoman
Empire came more into contact with western Europe this custom
was continued, with particular emphasis on the presents. Ambassa-
dors vied with each other as to the wonder and the value of the gifts
they brought ; one of the most magnificent was the organ sent by
Elizabeth I of England for Mehmed III. 4 But for those diplomats
like M. de Nointel and Sir John Finch who were in Istanbul during
1 Notable exceptions were 1661/Emir Mehmed Buhari (Murad II), §eyh Ak §em-
seddin (Mehmed II), and Senusi §eyh Seyyid Ahmed (Mehmed VI). Eremya, 33, in
the seventeenth century writes: ‘Then the Sultan, taking the sword from the ‘Silahdar’
is girded and returns home/ See Table VIII, p. 45.
2 Ahmed I sent a ‘Hatt-i Humayun’ to Kasim Pa$a: ‘Thou who art Kasim Pa$a,
my father has died at God's orders, and I have succeeded to the throne. Take the
sovereign power and rule. If any disorders arise I shall cut off thy head.' Dani?mend
O.T.K. iii. 230. 3 Hayder, 109.
4 Dallam, 57-71. It did not arrive until 1599 but was an accession gift.
ACCESSIONS
43
times of upheaval, it was very difficult to provide sufficient presents
of the right quality and their correspondence is full of complaints. 1
Although the sultans conquered many dominions and incor-
porated their names in the royal titles, 2 yet very little ceremonial
seems to have been attached to these acquisitions. 3
It remains to deal with one unpleasant side of an accession. Once
the Janissaries had realized their own strength, they made many
importunate demands on the sultans’ resources. The chief of these
was a special payment, known as the ‘Cuius Akfasi’ (Accession
Money), which a sultan had to promise to pay before the troops
would approve his accession. 4 It was, of course, an act of stupendous
blackmail but shows just how dependent on the goodwill of his
troops was even the strongest of the sultans. In fact, the first to pay
had been Mehmed II and the demand was renewed with every acces-
sion, regardless of its effects on the country’s finances, until the
dissolution of the Janissaries in 1828. 5 One sultan partly escaped
payment; when Murad IV came to the throne in 1623, his was the
fourth accession in six years and, the treasury being empty, the
troops for once agreed to forgo their extortions. Later, however,
they changed their minds and all the available gold and silver plate
in the Saray was sent to the Mint to be coined for their benefit.
The same measures had to be undertaken at the time of Suley-
man II’s accession. Payment was only excused when Ahmed II
came to the throne.
1 See Abbott, Finch , passim , and Shay, 45-56.
2 See pp. 1 1 1 ff.
3 Don Juan, 125, speaks of Suleyman I being ‘crowned Emperor of Mesopotamia
at the hands of the [Grand Mufti] of Bagdad*.
4 The payment generally consisted of a cash payment together with a rise in the daily
rates of pay; Fisher, 18, says that Bayezid II paid 1,000 ‘ak^a* to each ‘sipahi* and 300
to each janissary and increased the daily pay by five and three ‘ak9a’ respectively. At
his accession Murad III paid out over a million gold pieces in bribes to the army and
senior officials. For the payments of Amed III, in 1703, see Wright, 5-7.
5 Uzun^ar^ili, S.T . 59, says it really came to an end with Abdulhamid I, for in 1774
the country was at war with Russia; after him no real exactions were made.
44
ACCESSIONS
Table VII. The Extent of the Interregnums
Date predecessor
Date and place
Extent of
Sultan
died or deposed
of acclamation
interregnum
1 /Osman
1281
1281 ; Sogiit (?)
None 1
2/Orhan
1324
1324; Yeni^ehir (?)
None 1
3 /Murad I
4* 13 60
4.1360; Bursa (?)
p
4/Bayezid I
6. 1389
6.1389; Kosova
None
5/Mehmed I
28. 7. 1402
5. 7. 1413; Edime
11 years
6/Murad II
j
f 26. 5. 1421 (S) 2
5. 7. 1421 ; Bursa
40 days 3
19- 1446
9. 1446; Edirne
None
7/Mehmed II
I 12. 1444
12. 1444; Edirne
None
' 3- 2. 1451 (S)
18. 2. 145 1 ; Edime
15 days
8/Bayezid II
3. 5. 1481 (S)
j 4 . 5. 1481; Istanbul
[ 21. 5. 1481 ; Istanbul
1 day 4
18 days
9/Selim I
24. 4. 1512
24. 4. 1512; Istanbul
None
10/Suleyman I
22. 9. 1520 (S)
30. 9. 1520; Istanbul
8 days
1 1 /Selim II
7. 9. 1566 (S)
(30. 9. 1566; Istanbul
(25. 10. 1566; Belgrade
23 days 5
48 days
12/Murad III
15. 12. 1574 (S)
21. 12. 1574; Istanbul
6 days
13/Mehmed III
16. 1. 1595 (S)
27. 1. 1595; Istanbul
11 days
14/Ahmed I
21. 12. 1603
21. 12. 1603; Istanbul
None
1 As explained on p. 54, both 44/Ertugrul and Osman I probably abdicated some
time before their actual deaths.
2 (S) indicates that the previous sultan’s death was kept secret during all or part of
the Interregnum.
3 Uzun9ar§ih, S.T. 192, speaks of Murad II being girded in the Eski Cami at
Edime, but he was proclaimed in Bursa; it was his rival, 538/Mustafa ibni Bayezid I
who was proclaimed at Edirne — see Dam^mend, i. 184.
4 The first date is the acclamation of 583/Korkud ibni Bayezid II as Regent, the
second that of Bayezid II’s personal acclamation. Fisher, 18-19, says Bayezid reached
Istanbul on 20 May, buried his father on 21 May, and took over the government from
Korkud on 22 May.
5 See p. 39.
ACCESSIONS
45
Table VIII. The Performance of the ‘ Kilic Kusanmasi’
Sultan
Persons performing
Place 1
1 /Osman I
2/Orhan
3 /Murad I
4/Bayezid I
5 /Mehmed I
6/Murad II
Emir Sultan $eyh Mehmed Buhari 2
Bursa
7/Mehmed II
{ §eyh Ak §emseddin
Edime, 3
Istanbul
8/Bayezid II
‘Nakib-ul E?raf’ (N/E)
Istanbul
9/Selim I
‘§eyh-iil islam* ($/I), N/E, ‘Silahdar
Istanbul
Agasi* (S/A)
10/Siileyman I
9/1. N/E, S/A
Istanbul
n/Selim II
5/1, N/E, S/A
Istanbul
12/Murad hi
$/I, N/E, S/A
Istanbul
13/Mehmed III
5/1, N/E, S/A
Istanbul
14/Ahmed I
5/1, N/E, S/A
Istanbul
15/Mustafa I
5/1, N/E, S/A
Istanbul
1 6/Osman II
5/1, N/E, S/A
Istanbul
17/Murad IV
§eyh Aziz Mahmud Hud&i, §/t, N/E, S/A
Istanbul
18/Ibrahim
5/1, N/E, S/A
Istanbul
19/Mehmed IV
5/t, N/E, S/A and Mevlevi Dervi§ Meh-
Istanbul
med Pa$a
20/Suleyman II
5/1 and ‘Yeni-feri Agasi’ (Y/A)
Istanbul
21/Ahmed II
5/t and N/E
Edime
22/Mustafa II
5/1 and N/E
Edime
23/Ahmed III
N/E, Y/A, S/A
Edime
24/Mahmud I
N/E
Istanbul
25/Osman III
9/1
Istanbul
26/Mustafa III
9/1. N/E
Istanbul
27/Abdulhamid I
9/1
Istanbul
28/Selim III
5/1 and N/E
Istanbul
29/Mustafa IV
Y/A (?), N/E, 5/1
Istanbul
30/ Mahmud II
N/E, and ‘Mevlevi §eyhi* (?)
Istanbul
31/Abdiilmecid I
N/E
Istanbul
32/Abdiilaziz
9/1, N/E
Istanbul
3 3 /Murad V
Not performed (too ill)
34/Abdulhamid II
§/t, and ‘Mevlevi §eyhi’ (?)
Istanbul
3 5 /Mehmed V
§/ 1, and ‘Mevlevi $eyhi’ (?)
Istanbul
36/Mehmed VI
Senusi §eyh Seyyid Ahmed
Istanbul
37/Abdulmecid (II)
Not performed (only Caliph)
—
1 With the exceptions of Murad II (Bursa) and Ahmed II, Mustafa II, and Ahmed III
(Edime), these all took place at Eytib, near Istanbul.
2 Hasluck, ii. 6o6, infers from the title ‘Emir Sultan’ that $eyh Bohara was the head
of the Mevlevi Dervishes.
3 Presumably Mehmed II had been girded, either in 1444 or in 1451, at Edime,
before he instituted the ceremony at Eyiib.
VII
REGENCIES
Asa recognized part of what may be called constitutional theory,
the conception of a regency (‘Naiplik’), rendered necessary by the
incapacity of the ruler, was entirely foreign to the political structure
of the Ottoman Empire. The Orient only understood the rule of the
strong; if a sultan was not fit to govern, then he ceased to govern.
This can be seen clearly in the case of Mehmed II ; when he first
came to the throne he was an inexperienced lad of twelve, and it is
almost inconceivable that Murad II should have abdicated leaving
all the responsibility in his hands. Admittedly there were the vizirs,
including Grand Vizir Halil Pa§a of the traditionally powerful Qan-
darh family, but they were only subjects and could not be raised
to a position which would make them demi-sultans. Natural death
or Fratricide had eliminated all senior males of the house, while
the ladies of the harem had not yet learned to manipulate political
power. There was no one, therefore, to become regent and the only
solution to the impasse was the recall of Murad II. 1 It is pertinent
to ask what would have happened if Murad had died and not just
abdicated in 1444; one can only presume that a long period of dis-
order would have ensued, resulting in the indefinite postponement
of the capture of Constantinople.
A unique case of regency has already been mentioned 2 when, in
1481, the Janissaries raised 583/Korkud to the throne to act as
regent until his father Bayzeid II could reach Istanbul from
Amasya. This action was so unprecedented that it seems to have
posed as many problems as it solved. 3 Although Korkud had
received the acclamation of the troops in the name of his father, yet
many believed that by the fact of being acclaimed he had in his own
person become de jure sultan and that, when Bayezid took over the
throne on his arrival, he was in fact usurping his son’s rights.
1 See p. 56.
2 See p. 39. See also Unver’s Sultan Nichemedy , 14: ‘Ce Korkud Sultan, Ishak Pa?a
le fit monter sur Ie trone imperial, non pour r^gner, mais pour gouvemer comme lieu-
tenant de son pere Yildinm [sic] Bayezid. . . .* Just previously he is spoken of as grand-
son of the Sultan. 3 See Fisher, 17, 19 (n. 42), and 105.
REGENCIES
47
Korkud is said to have shared these views and this is given as an
explanation for his later disaffection and unqualified hatred of his
upstart younger brother, Selim I. This situation was paralleled in
the setting up of 1778/Oguzhan as regent for his father 570/Cem,
until the latter could reach Bursa and contest the imperial inheri-
tance with Bayezid.
There was another type of temporary regency by which sons of
various sultans were called in from their provincial governorates to
take over supreme control of the central government, while the
sultan himself was on campaign at the head of his invading armies.
But from the individuals appointed it would seem that this was
considered a minor office and never had any bearing on the suc-
cession. 1
2162/Mehmed Sokollu Pa§a was presented with an opportunity
rather like Halil £andarli’s, but he seems to have made no attempt
to use it. Suleyman I had created him Grand Vizir and ‘Serasker* —
head of the civil and the military organization — and by marriage he
was closely united to the imperial house. On his master’s death he
might well have challenged the unpopularity of Selim II and made
■ himself regent to one of the latter’s sons— or even aspired to the
throne itself. But he never did.
It was not until the seventeenth century that a series of minori-
ties rendered necessary some practical form of regency. By then the
Ottoman Empire had begun to decline and the centre of power
within the body politic had shifted from the sultan and his sons to
a cabal sprung from an identity of interests between the ladies of
the harem and the vizirs. So, strangely enough, the need found its
solution ready to hand; to watch over the affairs of state during
these minorities there came a number of extremely strong-minded
and politically developed ‘Valide Sultanlar’ (Princess-Mothers). It
was the period of palace intrigue, of backstairs politics, known to
history as the ‘Kadinlar Saltanati’ (Rule of the Women). 2 Chief
among these ladies was the great 191/Kosem Mahpeyker Valide
Sultan who in effect ruled the Ottoman Empire during the reigns
of her sons Murad IV and Ibrahim and that of her grandson
1 See p. 20, and Table III, p. 23.
2 See p, 81. But these were not regencies in the Western sense, for the ‘Valide
Sultanlar’ did not automatically cease to rule when their sons came of age. Theirs can
best be compared with the authority exercised by Catherine de Medici in sixteenth-
century France.
REGENCIES
48
Mehmed IV, from 1623 to her assassination in September 1651.
She was followed by her rival, 229/Turhan Hadice Valide Sultan,
the mother of Mehmed.
Once only was a subject legally appointed Regent of the Ottoman
Empire ; when Abdiilaziz travelled to Paris and thence to London, on
the occasion of the Paris Exhibition of 1867, provision had to be made
for the maintenance of government. During the Sultan’s absence,
a period of almost two months and the only occasion when a reign-
ing sultan left his dominions, all affairs of state were left in the
hands of the Grand Vizir Ali Mehmed Pa§a. They were not, be it
noted, confided to any member of the House of Osman. 1
The last occasion when a regency was proposed again reveals that
such an institution was really foreign to the structure of the Otto-
man Empire. This was when it became clear that Murad V’s mental
disorders were likely to be of a prolonged nature, even though — as
was actually the case — there was some hope of an eventual recovery.
Some of the ministers proposed that Murad’s brother, Abdiil-
hamid II, should be invited to ascend the throne in a temporary
capacity, on the understanding that he would step down again
should Murad regain full possession of his faculties. But this solu-
tion was considered satisfactory to no one ; it seemed to raise again
the possibility of a divided inheritance and to be contrary to the
principle that ‘there should be one supreme imam in Islam’. So
Murad V was deposed after a reign of only three months and his
place was taken permanently by Abdiilhamid II. 2
Table IX. Minorities and ‘ Regents'
Sultan
Age at accession
Person exercising power
7/Mehmed II
12 y. 5 m.
Halil Qandarli (G.V.)
14/Ahmed I
13 y. 8 m.
180/Handan (V.S.)
16/Osman II
13 y. 3 m.
192/Mahfiruz (V.S.)
17/Murad IV
1 1 y. 2 m.
191/Kosem Mahpeyker (V.S.)
19/Mehmed IV
6 y. 7 m.
1 191/Kosem Mahpeyker (B.V.S.)
( 228/Turhan Hadice (V.S.)
1 On his earlier visit to Egypt, April 1863, he had still been technically within his
own empire, but Grand Vizir Yusuf Kamil Pa§a acted as regent.
2 $ehsuvaroglu, Aziz, 164-9, an d Inal, Sadrazamlar , 409 ff.
VIII
REBELLIONS AND PRETENDERS
The peace of the Ottoman Empire was continually disturbed by
rebellions of its subjects, both in the most distant provinces and
within the capital. Where these directly affected the Succession,
they have been described in the appropriate chapters; 1 others — the
large majority — have no bearing at all on the subject of this book.
There remains, however, a third group : the unsuccessful challenges
to the throne led by, or in the name of, members of the imperial
family. With few exceptions, these are confined to the Early Period,
and mostly to the century prior to the capture of Constantinople.
As far as is known, the two long reigns of Osman I and Orhan
were without incident, but Murad Fs son 521/Savci gave him a
great deal of trouble. The records are confused and mutually con-
flicting, but it seems probable that he rebelled once in 1373 in
conjunction with Andronicus Paleologus and that both were for-
given by their respective fathers. In 1385 Savci was left in charge
at Bursa, while Murad I was on campaign in the Balkans; seizing
the opportunity, he had himself proclaimed sultan and the ‘Hutba’
was read in his name. This time there was no forgiveness, although
it is difficult to know whether the punishment meted out to Savci —
blinding which led to his subsequent death — was inspired more by
his father’s or his brother’s animosity, for Murad’s authority and
Bayezid’s inheritance had been equally challenged. 2
The disruption of the Ottoman Empire consequent on the Battle
of Ankara in 1402 created an atmosphere particularly favourable to
rebellions and pretenders. Strictly speaking, however, no one of the
four sons of Bayezid I who contended for power during the Great
Interregnum could be accused of rebellion; as long as the inheri-
tance remained divided no one of them could lay claim to the
1 See ‘Succession’ and ‘Depositions’, passim.
‘It is claimed for Murad I that he was inexorably just and that he caused his “be-
loved son Savci to be executed for rebellion”, von Hammer believes that he had long been
jealous of him, but the better opinion would appear to be that Bayezid I intrigued to
have his brother condemned.’ Cam . Med. Hist. iv. 673. The conflicting records are dis-
cussed in Dam^mend, i. 68.
5 <>
REBELLIONS AND PRETENDERS
sultanate. But there were several ‘hangovers' from this period
which were to cause serious embarrassment to both Mehmed I and
Murad II.
Early in his reign Mehmed I had to face a rebellion led by 1644/
Orhan ibni 540/ Suleyman and supported by the Byzantine Emperor.
Orhan was captured and sent to Bursa, where he died of plague in
1429. But the chief problem was that of Mustafa. There had been
present at the Battle of Ankara a fifth son of Bayezid, 538/Mustafa;
but when the fighting was over, he was nowhere to be found. There
was no sign of his corpse among those strewn across the battlefield,
although careful search was made ; nor was he among the hordes of
prisoners that had been captured; nor did he show up later with any
of the groups that had escaped from the scene of fighting. The
manner of his disappearance has never been explained, nor his fate
during the ensuing years ; was he killed during the battle or while
trying to make his escape ? If not, then why did the Interregnum—
a heaven-sent opportunity for anyone wishing to make claims to the
throne — pass without a sign from the young Mustafa? Whatever
the explanation, suddenly in 1416 Mehmed I was faced with a
rebellion in Rumelia, led by a man who claimed to be his brother,
538/Mustafa (pelebi. Some historians consider him to have been
genuine, others have labelled him ‘Diizme’ (False); in either case a
number of important points remain to be cleared up. 1 Mustafa was
defeated and fled to Byzantine protection and the Emperor agreed
to intern him on Limnos. When Mehmed I died, the Emperor
released Mustafa and helped to set him up as sultan and he was
actually proclaimed at Edirne and minted some coins. However, on
crossing into Anatolia he was defeated by Murad II, who pursued
him back into Rumelia, caught and executed him in 1423. 2
Then there was another Mustafa, this time the son of Mehmed I,
who caused trouble to Murad II. No sooner had the latter disposed
of his ‘uncle’, than this brother 554/Mustafa rebelled in Anatolia,
supported by Germiyan, Karaman, and Byzantium. Again Murad
1 Uzurt£ar§ih, S.T. 134, relying on the ‘Enveri Diisturname\ says Mustafa was
taken prisoner to Samarkand by Timur and later stayed at Nigde with the Karaman-
ogullan ; then he joined with the Byzantine Emperor and the Candarogullari against
Mehmed I. But Arabshah, 187, says: ‘As for Mustafa, he was lost, and nearly thirty
men of that name were killed on his account/
2 Dani^mend, i. 181, gives a different version suggesting that Mustafa maintained
his independence at Edirne from 1419 to 1422; but this is untrue since Mehmed I
died there in 1421. See also Orik, in Y.T.D, i. 6, and Inci 5 in R.T.M. iv. 2645.
REBELLIONS AND PRETENDERS 5 *
was successful and this Mustafa, too, was executed in the same year.
Murad II was also troubled by the presence in Egypt of 1645/
Suleyman and 1646/Hundi, grandchildren of 540/Emir Suleyman,
but he was never able to capture them and in fact they did not
constitute a real danger. 1
The next case of rebellion was in 1473 when the fourteen-year-
old 570/Cem was left as regent in Istanbul while his father went on
campaign against 1795/Uzun Hasan. News from the front was long
overdue and the capital was flooded with rumours that Mehmed II
was dead, so certain of the vizirs attempted to put Cem on the throne.
However, before their plans could be consummated — which would
have raised further constitutional problems, for his elder brother
Bayezid would certainly have contested the choice — news of the
campaign’s successful termination and of the Sultan s imminent
return was received. This immediately broke up the conspiracy and
when Mehmed reached the capital he punished all those con-
cerned, with the exception of the young prince ; perhaps he realized
that the latter was more sinned against than sinning. 2 Connected
with this there is also the story that when Mehmed II died outside
Uskiidar, he was about to embark on a campaign aimed at the
destruction of a rebellious Bayezid II, but of this there is no proof. 3
Apart from the early struggle against Cem and the final revolts
which overthrew the unfortunate Bayezid II, that Sultan had to face
a long series of rebellions on the part of his sons 584/Mahmud,
585/Mehmed, and 586/§ahin§ah. 4 But it was the revolts of his sur-
viving sons 58 1 /Ahmed, 583/Korkud, and Selim I which caused him
the greatest trouble and led to his final downfall ; each was struggling
for the succession and the continued existence of their father was
of little importance to them. 5
Even after Selim I had asserted his superiority over his brothers
and had executed them, he was still troubled by two of his nephews.
1913/Murad ibni 581/Ahmed had escaped to Persia and the protec-
tion of I9i5/$ah Ismail; it was partly to recapture him that Selim
embarked on the ^aldiran campaign ; Murad survived that but died
in 1517. 6 His brother, 1912/Kasim ibni Ahmed, fled to Egypt where
1 Uzuncanjili, S.T . 137. 2 Babinger, Mehmed II, 37^-6,
3 Fisher, 16 and 103; Babinger, ibid. 334.
4 See Fisher, 103-5. 5 ^ ee P* ^ 2 *
6 Hoca Sadeddin tells of a ‘Diizme* IVIurad who arose and gave Selim I much
trouble.
J J f k
V
52
REBELLIONS AND PRETENDERS
the Mamelukes used him to good purpose. Selim I searched
eagerly for him while in Egypt, but it was not until a year later that
Kasim was found and executed. Selim I was also forced to execute
three of his own sons. 1
Suleyman I had continual trouble with his sons, which arose
chiefly from the intrigues of 151/Hurrem Sultan. Supported by her
favourite son 601/Bayezid, her daughter 1100/Mihrimah and the
latter’s husband, 2126/Grand Vizir Rustem Pa§a, Hurrem struck at
606/Mustafa, son of her rival 152/Mahidevran; she succeeded in
encompassing his death, but herself died soon after. Immediately
a bitter rivalry broke out between the blood-brothers, Bayezid and
Selim II; the latter was more cunning in gaining his father’s
support. Bayezid finally fled to Persia with his family, but Spah
Tahmasp was persuaded to sell them to their death in 1561. 2
But while there were later cases of Fratricide, these were the out-
come rather of suspicion and jealousy than of overt rebellion; for
after 1600 all the princes were closely guarded in the ‘Selamlik’ or
the ‘Kafes’ of the saray. The princes in the ‘Kafes’ w r ere mere tools
of those wishing to obtain power and took no active part in the
rebellions organized by the soldiery or the palace cliques. 3 No
further outbreaks could be expected until the second half of the
nineteenth century, when the sultans began to grant more freedom
to the princes. 4
As has been seen, 5 Abdiilaziz was very keen to change the Law
of Succession back to the old system with definite primogeniture.
Taking advantage of this, Fuad Pa§a plotted to overthrow the
dynasty by way of a regency over the young 844/Yusuf Izzeddin,
but nothing came of it. 6
It is known, too, that Murad V was involved in a plot to dethrone
Abdiilaziz, but the only result was the placing of restrictions on his
own liberty. 7 Abdiilhamid II also took an active, though more care-
1 See Dani^mend, ii. 5.
2 See Damsmend, ii. 322; Uzun^ar^ili, S.T . 140, gives 1559. Possibly Suleyman
favoured Bayezid, but he would do nothing to ensure his succession and the plot of
Lala Mustafa Pa§a went against him; Bayezid certainly forfeited the army’s support by
his flight. The unrest in the country is reflected in Busbecq: Rustem ‘anticipated that
if Suleyman made an expedition into Hungary his sons were sure to seize the oppor-
tunity for some fresh attempt. ... In view of the existing quarrels and civil war betw een
the royal princes, I do not despair of obtaining tolerable conditions of peace’ (pp. 87
and 105). 3 See pp. 63 ff.
4 See p. 35. s gee p. 12.
6 §ehsuvaroglu, Aziz , 45. 7 §ehsuvarogIu, 54.
REBELLIONS AND PRETENDERS
53
fully concealed, part in the plans which led to the decision to depose
Murad V. 1 After the latter had been driven into retirement, three
successive plots were hatched to restore him to the throne, but in
each case they were foiled by Abdiilhamid’s efficient police system. 2
During the World War I, the Russians are said to have worked
out a plan in 1915 to set up a rival sultan, ruling in Asiatic Turkey,
who would eventually overthrow the Ottoman dynasty. The man
they chose was Cemal Pa§a (of the Young Turk Triumvirate), whom
they thought to be at odds with the government. But there is no
evidence that Cemal was even approached in the matter. In any
case, the plan ran counter to the interests of England and France
in the Middle East, and was stillborn. 3
Finally in this section, mention must be made of the strange story
of Tadre Ottomano’, though in it there is no question of a threat to
the throne. The ‘Kizlar Agasi’, Siimbul Aga, had a beautiful girl
in the harem, but she became pregnant and was chosen to be the
wet nurse of the infant Mehmed IV. The Sultan, Ibrahim, seemed
to prefer her child to his own to such an extent that 229/
Turhan Hadice — the i Sultan Haseki’ concerned — became extremely
jealous. To prevent further trouble, the ‘Kizlar Agasi’ decided to
go to Mekka and took both the girl and her child with him. On the
voyage they were captured and taken to Malta, where the boy was
brought up as a Christian ; to the Knights he was known as Tadre
Ottomano’ and they believed him to be a son of the Sultan. 4
1 §ehsuvaroglu, Aziz y 164-70.
2 See p. 29, n. 4.
3 The story is told from the Russian documents in R.T.M . i. 12, by *M. Z.’, but
no sources are given, and it seems rather far-fetched.
4 von Hammer, xi. 312, and Castellan, ii. 60. He was baptized as Dominique de
Saint Thomas; see Murat, ‘Osmanh Papazi’, in R.T.M . v. 3101.
IX
ABDICATIONS
The history of the Ottoman Empire was punctuated by many
changes of rulers for reasons other than the death of a sultan, but
few of these could be described as an abdication, a voluntary with-
drawal and renunciation of power, such as was shown by Dio-
cletian or Charles V. For the most part the retiring sultans were
deposed by scheming officials, discontented Janissaries or usurping
relations, though on many occasions, let it be said, these appear to
have acted in the best interests of the state.
Of genuine abdications there seem to have been only two success-
ful examples: Osman I and Murad II; one which did not mature:
Bayezid II; and two doubtful cases: 44/Ertugrul and Orhan. In
each case the reason seems to have been the same : physical or mental
exhaustion resulting from overwork. As one considers the growth
of the Ottoman Empire in 250 years — from an insignificant clan of
marcher-warriors and semi-nomad shepherds in a secluded valley
of Western Anatolia to the far-flung dominion of Suleyman I — it
becomes clear that such a stupendous act of creation must have
made heavy demands upon the energies of those who accom-
plished it.
Ertugrul is traditionally said to have renounced all authority in
favour of his son Osman some years before his own death in 1281,
but there is no accurate information on this point. However, if the
date of Ertugrul’s birth, given in some chronicles as 1198, is at all
correct then it would be only natural if the octogenarian had re-
nounced some or all of his powers before his death. This seems the
more reasonable when one considers that it was just at this time that
the Ottomans were preparing to embark on a policy of expansion
which would require a younger and more active leader.
Osman I probably died in the early part of 1324, but for at least
five years before that little or nothing is heard of him; his son
Orhan was clearly the leading figure during the campaign which
reached its climax with the capture of Bursa. It is presumed, there-
fore, that formally or informally Osman handed over all effective
ABDICATIONS
55
power to Orhan about the year 1320 — perhaps even a little earlier. 1
In the case of Orhan’s abdication the evidence is again presumptive
but less tangible. There is the same lack of information regarding
the Sultan's activities after about 1355, and the same prominence
of a son, 514/Siileyman Pa§a, during Orhan’s last years — both
negative but rather suggestive points. Unfortunately for Orhan,
Suleyman met with a fatal accident near the Rumelian shores of the
Dardanelles in 1359, and his father had to resume the reins of
government. But not for long; the shock of his favourite son’s death
appears to have been too much for Orhan’s tired spirit and within
a year he, too, was dead.
Until recently accounts given of the events of 1444 have been con-
flicting and confused, but it is now possible to give a more coherent
explanation. 2 The story that Murad II abdicated in the middle of
1444 has always seemed contrary to reason; how could he have
turned over the administration of the whole empire to an admittedly
inexperienced boy just at the moment when enemies were massing
for the attack on both frontiers ? The truth seems to be that early in
June Murad left Mehmed as governor of Rumelia, whilst he him-
self crossed over to Anatolia to destroy the forces of Karaman be-
fore the East European powers could mobilize to strike in the west
and crush the Turkish forces between hammer and anvil. Events at
Edirne — the heretical preachings of the Hurufi sheikh, the incendiary
activities of the Janissaries, and the imminent approach of the
Crusaders — made urgent the return of the Sultan. Luckily, the
campaign in Anatolia was soon ended and Murad was able to with-
draw most of his forces ; checked by the Christian fleet in the Dar-
danelles, Murad had to cross the Bosphorus and only just reached
Varna in time to lead his troops to victory (10 November 1444).
Then suddenly, and contrary to the advice of his vizirs, Murad II
abdicated and retired to Manisa ; the ‘Hutba’ was read in Mehmed II’s
name and he ordered new coins to be struck at the various imperial
mints. 3 It is impossible to assess exactly the motives behind this
1 ‘In truth, after that date [1320] the government was in the hands of Orhan. It is
not clear how long Osman lived after he handed over control to his son, nor whether
Orhan Bey became ruler after Osman’s death, or whether the latter died after giving
his son complete authority.’ Uzun£ar§ili, O.T. i. 30; and in Belleten y 34. 207.
2 For what follows the author is indebted to the account given in Babinger, Mehmed
45-64, which is based on letters from various Italian eyewitnesses, including
Pizzicolli.
3 Artuk, 16.
ABDICATIONS
56
decision, though tentative suggestions can be made. Twenty years
of campaigning to east and west had clearly wearied Murad, while
his recent victories over Karaman and Crusaders made it certain
that the Ottoman Empire could not be threatened from without for
a long time; Manisa offered a pleasant retreat from worldly cares.
The deaths of his two sons, 560/Ahmed and 562/Alaeddin Ali, must
have saddened Murad, particularly as he never seems to have had
much affection for Mehmed II; it is possible, therefore, that he
wished to follow a contemplative life among dervish companions. 1
Perhaps, also, the tensions which had arisen within the Empire be-
tween the old Turkish ‘nobility’ and the upstart renegade vizirs had
reached such a pitch that Murad felt incapable of resolving them;
his own withdrawal and the presence of a new sultan might pour oil
on the troubled waters. 2
Unfortunately, Murad’s retirement lasted little more than a year
and a half (December 1444-Sept ember 1446). Again, there is
little positive information; it may be assumed that the coup d'etat
was engineered by the grand vizir, Qandarh Halil Pa§a, and that the
story that Mehmed II himself summoned his father is apocryphal. 3
Halil’s course of action probably stemmed from inability to work
harmoniously with Mehmed, and a fear that the young Sultan was
about to dismiss him. The Janissaries, too, were restive, irked by the
ineffectiveness of their boy ruler, so that the vizirs feared for their
lives and property should the disaffection of the troops not be checked
immediately. Murad, however, did not rush back to the capital;
having left Manisa in May, in August he was still at Bursa, where
he made his will — fearful of the future? Not until September did
Murad reach Edirne and become sultan-regnant for a second time,
while Mehmed took his place amid the quiet surroundings of Manisa,
‘exiled’ from court so that he might gain more experience as a
provincial governor. So ended Murad II’s ill-timed and short-
lived abdication.
The last voluntary abdication — or, rather, attempted abdication,
1 Uzun9ar$th, O.T. i. 219, n. i, speaks only of Murad enjoying himself but in S.T.
82, the same writer gives as the main reason for Murad’s abdication, his being dispirited
by the defeat he had suffered at the hands of John Hunyadi in 1443. Hasluck, ii. 492, n. 2,
quotes Phrantzes that Murad retired to Bursa as a dervish. The simple, almost ascetic
terms of Murad’s will — see Babinger, Mehmed //, 63 — suggest some religious influence
at work.
2 This is the motive Babinger, ibid. 58, prefers.
3 See Cam. Med. Hist. iv. 692.
ABDICATIONS
57
for it was completely frustrated — came in the next reign but one.
Bayezid II seems to have been of a contradictory nature, never really
content and never able to turn the tide of events in his own favour.
The Turks called him ‘Veli’ (Saint) or ‘Sofu’ (Devout), indicating
that side of his character which would much have preferred a quiet
studious life to all the strain and turmoil of imperial rule. 1 Yet it is
clear that public life also attracted him; long before he came to the
throne he had allied himself by marriages with the powerful cabal
of court vizirs ; 2 equally, having once mounted the throne, he fought
doggedly against his brother 570/Cem with every available weapon
of war and diplomacy to preserve intact his inheritance. 3 The strain
of that struggle, lasting fourteen years, obviously tired Bayezid and,
when after a few more years his own sons began manoeuvring for
positions from which to dispute the succession on their father’s
death, Bayezid felt that the time had come to retire to Dimetoka,
his birthplace. This was in 151 1 and he offered to abdicate in favour
of his best-loved son, 581/Ahmed, but the troops would have none
of it and the vizirs, realizing that the youngest son, Selim I, might
eventually reach the throne, refused to endanger their own careers
by countenancing the Sultan’s proposals. 4 Possibly also this refusal
to allow Bayezid II to abdicate was due to a memory of the con-
fusion caused by Murad II’s attempts. So Bayezid II’s desire to
abdicate remained unfulfilled; but a year later Selim I felt strong
enough to overthrow his father and Bayezid left Istanbul for retire-
ment in Dimetoka after all. Death, however, overtook him on the
road.
Some of the later sultans may have accepted their depositions
gracefully, but the only one who, in any sense, may be said to have
abdicated is Mehmed VI. After the National Assembly had abolished
the sultanate, he was allowed to remain as caliph, but he chose
rather to flee the country. 5
1 E.I. ii. 569; ‘Bayezid II is said to have intended after the death of his father
Mehmed II to renounce the throne and retire to Iznik [Nicea].*
2 Fisher, 19. 3 Fisher, passim, 4 Fisher, 107-9. 5 See p. 72.
ABDICATIONS
58
Table X. Abdications
Sultan
Date
Comments
44/Ertugrul
?
To Osman; traditionally so.
1 /Osman I
c. 1320
To Orhan; survived about five years.
2/Orhan
c - 1355
To 5 1 4/Svileyman Pa§a ; probable ; on latter’s
death five years later he took power
again for one year.
6/Murad II
12. 1444
To Mehmed II; re -ascended the throne
after two years and reigned for a further
five.
8/Bayezid II
1511
To 581/Ahmed; not put into effect.
36/Mehmed VI
17. 11. 1922
Fled the country after the sultanate had
been abolished ; caliphate passed to
Abdiilmecid (II).
X
DEPOSITIONS
I N all the other cases where the throne changed hands, except by
the death of a sultan, we must apply the word ‘Deposition’, for on
each occasion there was a strong element of compulsion, if not of
actual violence. Altogether, from Bayezid I to Abdiilmecid (II),
there were seventeen depositions; that is, practically half of the sul-
tans suffered this indignity of deposition — in the case of Mustafa I,
twice over.
The general history books give the impression that all these de-
positions were the work of small but powerful groups working
entirely in their own interests, but a detailed analysis will show that
there was always present some sentiment for the well-being of the
state. There was enough of this feeling to suggest that the depositions
were an expression of the democratic spirit implicit in the dual
institution of sultanate and caliphate; there was enough, also, to
ensure popular neutrality in, if not active support for, the uprisings
which brought about the downfall of the sultans . 1 At least the de-
positions prove that the sultans were limited in their absolutism to
a much greater extent than any other European monarch of the
same period . 2 Fear of the consequences, should they pursue any
particular policy too far, had a remarkably restraining effect on the
sultans; on only too many occasions popular outcry asserted itself
against the better judgement of those in power . 3 This is not to deny,
1 Gibb and Bowen, i. 26-38.
2 In this connexion it is interesting to recall that when Louis XIV asked 2360/
Grand Vizir Kopriiluzade Mustafa to withhold recognition from William of Orange as
King of England, he is said to have been told that it would ill become the Turks, who
had so often dethroned their own sovereigns, to dispute the rights of other nations to
change their masters. Historians’ History , xxiv. 339.
3 Gibb and Bowen, i. 38, say: ‘Their autocracy, limited in theory by the Sacred Law,
was also limited in practice by their liability to deposition. And in this respect the
weakening of their power during the second period [Selim II onwards] may be illus-
trated by a comparison/ The authors point out that the majority of depositions
(fourteen out of seventeen by the reckoning here) took place in the period of the
Empire’s decline, from the end of the sixteenth century. ‘Nor was it their successors
that were responsible for these depositions, which were oftenest brought about by the
soldiery of the capital.’ Zagelin, the Prussian Resident in Istanbul in 1768, said:
‘Though the [Turkish] form of government is despotic, it is such that when the people
6o
DEPOSITIONS
however, that the decision to depose was generally taken by some
small and irresponsible group which felt strong enough to overthrow
the reigning sultan ; it only suggests that the groups concerned were
successful because the action they took was felt to be necessary at
the moment and represented the will of the majority of the people. 1
This should perhaps be qualified to read, ‘the majority of the people
in Istanbul’, for, as in France, revolutions were made largely in the
capital without any reference to the provinces.
The reasons for the overthrow of the different sultans are varied
but seldom complex : failures in military or economic policy, inability
to control the rebellious Janissaries and palace cliques, insanity,
and, finally, neglect to study — and comply with — the wishes of the
people.
An apparent exception to these is, of course, the first case of the
deposition of an Ottoman sultan, that of Bayezid I, immediately
after the Battle of Ankara in July 1402. This was the one occasion
on which the fate of a sultan depended on forces outside and foreign
to the Empire. Yet here, too, one senses something of the will of the
people, a revolt against the megalomania of Sultan Bayezid which
had rushed them into an unnecessary and — more important — un-
successful war against Timur. It seems probable that the latter had
had no wish to invade and conquer Anatolia, let alone to continue
farther into Bayezid’s European dominions. The campaign Timur
embarked upon in the early part of 1402 was in origin purely
strategic, an attempt to safeguard his lines of communication with
Irak and Egypt against an unco-operative and truculent Bayezid.
Otherwise, why did Timur content himself with the submission of
Bayezid’s sons and allow them to continue as rulers of their father’s
dominions ? What was his intention in taking the captive Sultan to
Samarkand; to display him in a Roman triumph and then execute
him; or to release him later against a heavy ransom and let him
return to rule his people? Whatever the plan, Bayezid’s suicide
eight months later put an end to it. But the really striking thing is
that, while, technically, Bayezid was deposed by his conqueror, he
had in reality been previously deposed by his own people on the
field of battle. First the tributary tribes of the ‘Kara Tatarlar’
is enraged, the Government is no longer master and must yield to the torrent* — quoted
in Shay, 28.
1 For the unsuccessful ones, see pp. 49 ff.
DEPOSITIONS
61
(Black Tartars) deserted to the enemy and were followed by the
‘Sipahiler’ (feudal cavalry) of Anatolia; then the subject Serbs fled
the field. As if this were not enough, Grand Vizir £andarlizade Ali
Pa§a and the Yenigeri Agasi Hasan Aga escaped with the ‘crown-
prince’ 540/Siileyman (Jelebi to Bursa, 1 while £elebi Mehmed I
withdrew to Amasya. Furthermore, no substantial effort was ever
made to try to rescue Bayezid from his prison or even to negotiate
for his release; the realization that his sons and his people had
abandoned him was a potent influence in driving Bayezid I to
commit suicide. 2
The next case of deposition was also marked by unusual circum-
stances. The ill-timed abdication of Murad II brought to power
Mehmed II, a youth of twelve, who had as yet, in the nature of
things, gained little experience in the government of a state; his
apprenticeship as provincial governor of Manisa had begun only a
short while before. Feeling the abnormality and insecurity of his
position the young Mehmed probably ‘threw his weight about’ too
much and as a result aroused the opposition of the vizirs. It is
remarkable that no one of the latter — not even Grand Vizir £an-
darlizade Halil Pa$a — felt himself strong enough to assume the posi-
tion of a ‘lord protector’ and become the power behind the throne.
The probable reason is that Murad II at Manisa was still too close
to the seat of government and would never have countenanced such
a blow to the authority of the dynasty. The only course for the vizirs
was to bide their time. Remembering the troubles 3 that had arisen
earlier in the year when Mehmed had been governor of Edirne
during his father’s absence in Anatolia — the inflammatory sermons
of the Hurufi sheikh and the arson committed by the Janissaries —
they might reasonably expect that, now he was Sultan, Mehmed II
would not prove himself any more competent as a ruler. In fact,
however, it was eighteen months before the rising tension and sense
1 ‘Suleyman, when he saw the deeds of the Tatars, certain of the calamity which
threatened his father, took the rest of the flower of the army and withdrew from the
battlefield and turning his back, abandoned his father in the fierce stress of battle and
made his way with his men towards Bursa/ Arabshah, 183.
2 Fisher, 1 1 (following Wittek), says: ‘Conquests of the older Muslim states and the
adoption by him of many ways common to Balkan aristocracy alienated many of the
Gazi” who . . . seized the opportunity to redirect the energies of the state to former
Gazi” practices/ Gibbons, 249 and 257, says: ‘He had become a voluptuary, de-
bauched mentally and physically. . . . Bayezid died a victim not “to his destiny” as
the Ottoman historians put it, but to his vices and the abandonment of the policy of his
predecessors/ 3 See p. 55.
62
DEPOSITIONS
of frustration on both sides reached a point where Halil Pa§a felt
justified — or at least secure — in making an appeal to Murad to resume
the reins of government. This was in May 1446, but having once
agreed to return Murad did not hurry back to Edirne; after a pro-
longed stop in Bursa he finally reached the capital in late September.
It is not clear whether the transfer took place without any incident,
but this seems probable for already the Janissaries held the balance of
power and it was they who wished to restore Murad. Possibly, even,
on the day his father was to arrive the young Mehmed was tricked
into leaving the city and so demonstrations were avoided. 1 Thus
after a reign of about two years, Mehmed II was driven back to
Manisa, there to complete his political apprenticeship as provincial
governor. The effects of this setback and humiliation were twofold.
In the first place Mehmed learned his lesson to such good effect
that when, after a further five years, he was recalled to the throne
at his father’s death, he became the greatest of Ottoman sultans.
Secondly, he never forgot or forgave the vizirs who had worked so
hard to engineer his deposition; one of his first acts after the cap-
ture of Constantinople was to order the execution of Grand Vizir
Halil Pa$a, on the pretext of treasonable relations with the Greeks.
The next sultan to be deposed was Bayezid II, whose attempts at
voluntary abdication have already been considered. Although he
fought many successful campaigns, Bayezid was never a military
type; his real inclinations were towards contemplation and the
studious life. So it was that he never inspired the soldiers by his
leadership and it was unfortunate, though only natural, that in seek-
ing to abdicate his thoughts should have turned to 581 /Ahmed, the
son who most nearly resembled him. Bayezid failed to convince the
Janissaries that Ahmed would make a good ruler and the only result
of his well-intentioned plans was to stir up a hornet’s nest of opposi-
tion. The favour shown to one son was resented by both the others ;
the youngest and most ambitious of Bayezid’s surviving sons,
Selim I, set out to destroy all possible competition and was quite
prepared to crush his father, if necessary, in his fight for the throne. 2
1 Babinger, Mehmed II , 61-65. Uzun^ar^ih, S.T. 41, says that this was the last
time until the seventeenth century that the vizirs influenced the choice of a sultan :
‘With the conquest of Constantinople Mehmed II had grown strong and, escaping
from the influence of the high officials of state, took all affairs into his control’; but
what of the accessions of Bayezid II and Selim I ?
2 Uzun9ar$ih, O.T. ii. 229-39; Fisher, 103-12; and Ulu^ay, in Y.T.D. ii. 580.
DEPOSITIONS 63
Over a period of more than three years the three sons — 581/Ahmed,
583/Korkud, and Selim — intrigued with each other, with their
father, with the vizirs and the army; there were bribes and threats,
military expeditions and reprisals. The upshot of it all was that by
24 April 1512 Selim had possessed himself of Istanbul and the
imperial garrison, and deposed his father. The Janissaries cried out,
‘Our Padi^ah is old and sick; we want Selim Sah in his place .
Nothing less than total authority would satisfy Selim; the old Sul-
tan was forced into retirement and within a month he was dead. 1
This is the one clear and authenticated case of usurpation in the long
history of the dynasty; on no other occasion did the eventual suc-
cessor to the throne work so deliberately to oust its actual occu-
pant. 2 It is an interesting commentary on all this that Mehmed II is
said to have wished to kill Bayezid and so enable his brother 57 °/
Cem to come to the throne, simply because Bayezid had too many
sons who, his father foresaw, would be a source of continual trouble. 3
After this there were no further depositions in the Ottoman
dynasty for just over a hundred years, although the Janissaries did
propose in 1553 to depose Suleyman I on account of his age, retire
him to Dimetoka and replace him by his son 606/Mustafa. 4 On the
death of Ahmed I in 1617 the succession passed in special circum-
stances 5 to his brother Mustafa I, in spite of the fact that years of
close confinement had unhinged his mind. 6 Barely three months
had elapsed before the vizirs 7 were obliged pro bono publico to apply
for a ‘Fetva’ of Deposition. It is all the more surprising, therefore,
that on the deposition of his young nephew and successor Osman II
in 1622, Mustafa I — and not the latter’s other nephew Murad IV,
then aged ten — was again placed on the throne. But once more the
1 There is nothing to prove whether Bayezid died a natural death, worn out by all
his troubles, or was put to death; considering the Law of Fratricide and Selim s
character, the general assumption is that Bayezid met with a violent death.
2 Some think that Selim w 7 as only the instrument, albeit very willing, of the Janis-
saries who, ‘had grown conscious of their power as the Sultan’s chief support and used
it to bring about the deposition of Bayezid II and the accession of Selim I . Gibb and
Bow r en, i. 179. For a long complaint of Bayezid against his son Selim, see Qig, in T.D.
ii. 522. 3 Fisher, 16, n. 22.
4 Uzun^ar^ili, O.T. ii. 392. 5 See p. 10.
6 His survival in 1603 w 7 as necessary as there w 7 ere no other heirs to Ahmed I, but
soon the latter began to have sons. With the birth of each new nephew 7 , Mustafa
became of less and less importance to the dynasty; so his fear of sudden death mounted
and, in proportion with it, his incipient madness.
7 Grand Vizir Halil Pa$a w 7 as on campaign in Persia; action was taken by his deputy
2283/Gurcii Mehmed Pa§a and the ‘§eyh-ul Islam’.
DEPOSITIONS
64
strain of public affairs proved too heavy for his enfeebled mind and
‘Deli’ (Mad) Mustafa retired into the ‘Kafes’ again, this time for
good. 1 Thus he attained to the rather dubious distinction of being
the only sultan to be twice deposed and, at the same time, took his
place in the line of unfortunate princes of the Ottoman dynasty for
whom the name ‘Mustafa’ was cursed. 2
Between the two short reigns of Mustafa I there came the brief
and tragic episode of his nephew Osman II. At his accession in 1618
he was a spirited youth of fourteen and something of an idealist.
‘Genf’ (Young) Osman set himself the task of reorganizing the armed
forces and particularly the all-powerful Janissaries; on campaigns
in Europe and in Asia their unruliness had cost him the victory on
more than one occasion. Concealing his plans under the pretence of
going to Mekka to perform the ‘Hac’ (Pilgrimage), Osman pre-
pared to bring up forces from Egypt for the destruction of the
Janissaries. But they saw through the trick and, joining with the
‘Sipahiler’ who were also threatened, they rose in rebellion.
19 May 1622 was long remembered in Istanbul for the wild and
bloody deeds which took place; the Grand Vizir, Dilaver Pa$a, and
the ‘Kizlar Agasi’, Suleyman Aga, were torn to pieces by the mob.
‘Deli’ Mustafa I was dragged from the ‘Kafes’ to the throne-room, 3
while the rebellious horde seized and deposed Osman II. Distur-
bances continued all through the next day and other vizirs lost their
lives. As a last resort, Osman took refuge with the Janissaries, but
they only treated him as a prisoner and, on the orders of the new
Grand Vizir, 2212/Davud Pa$a, the ex-sultan was transferred to
‘Yedi Kule Hisan’ (Castle of the Seven Towers) and there strangled
by Kara Mezak Qavu§. 4
1 See Uzun^ar^ili, O.T. in. i. 152-3. Purchas, Relation , 1372, says: ‘Mustafa was
esteemed rather holy (that is franticke) than wise and indeed fitter for a cell than a
scepter.’ Of the second deposition Purchas, Coryates , 1849, says: ‘Herein consists the
wonder, that all this was done without any trouble, terror, shutting up of a shop, dis-
turbing the Merchants, rifling a Jew or tumult of the Janissaries.’
2 See p. 121.
3 The mob had to break into Mustafa’s cell through the roof and take him out that
way. Uzun^ar§ih, O.T. in. i. 142-3.
4 Purchas, Relation , 1372, says: ‘Davud Pa$a [a brother-in-law of Mustafa I] con-
sulted with some interested in Mustafa’s preferment and thereby obnoxious to Osman
to search how many of the royal blood were left alive and resolved if there remained
two, to make an end of Osman. Two of his brothers were found, the one about twelve
[Murad IV] the other about seven years of age [Ibrahim]; and therefore the Vizir went
himself to the prison with a pack of hangmen and gave orders to strangle the unfortu-
nate prince.’
DEPOSITIONS
65
As a result of the intrigues of 2247/Grand Vizir Receb Pa$a,
there was a threat to depose Murad IV in 1632, but it came to
nothing. The only tangible effect was that the Sultan soon after
decided to execute three of his brothers and Receb Pa^a. 1
Some twenty-five years later, at the age of thirty- three, Osman’s
younger brother Ibrahim was also deposed and assassinated. He had
hardly known even the limited freedom of a reigning sultan’s son,
for his father Ahmed I had died when he was only two years old.
For twenty-three years, until his accession in 1640, Ibrahim had
been kept a close prisoner in the ‘Kafes’, constantly in fear of his
life and completely under the influence of the palace women. The
result was only to be expected; Ibrahim came to the throne in a
state of mental perturbation, if not actual madness. With only one
aim in view, he used all the resources at his disposal for the gratifica-
tion of his sensual appetites. 2 Increasing financial oppression made
necessary by his excesses, and failure to bring the Cretan campaign
to a swift and successful termination, roused the people against
Ibrahim. A conspiracy was formed, in which the Sultan’s mother,
191/Kosem Mahpeyker Valide Sultan, took a prominent part and in
August 1648 Ibrahim was deposed in favour of his seven-year-old
son, Mehmed IV. Strangely enough, once deposed, Ibrahim began
to attract popular sympathy and support from the Janissaries; to
put an end to this the vizirs obtained a ‘Fetva’ for his execution.
So, ten days after his deposition, Ibrahim was strangled in his
prison by ‘Cellad’ (Executioner) Kara Ali. 3
This was a step fraught with danger for the House of Osman,
for Ibrahim was the only adult member of the family alive. Admit-
tedly five, and possibly six, of his sons survived their father’s death,
but the eldest, Mehmed IV, was only seven years old at the time,
and the rate of infantile mortality was extremely high (at least three
of Ibrahim’s sons had already died in infancy). There was thus a
grave risk of the dynasty dying out; in fact, however, Mehmed lived
for many years, as did four of his brothers, and he left several sons
to succeed him. In the end, after a reign of thirty-nine years,
Mehmed IV was deposed in November 1687, by decision of the
1 Uzungar^ili, O.T. hi. i. 187-92.
Some writers have tried to explain away Ibrahim’s madness; see particularly a
series of articles in T.D. i. 242, &c., under the title ‘Sultan Ibrahim Deli mi, Hasta
mivdi ?’ by Q. Ulupay; but the title rather begs the question.
3 Uzun£ar§ili, O.T . in. i. 239-44.
5707
F
66
DEPOSITIONS
vizirs. Always known as ‘Avci’ (Hunter) Mehmed, he had through-
out his reign devoted himself to the pleasures of the chase, to the
almost complete neglect of affairs of state and military duties. So,
to satisfy popular demand and forestall further military uprisings,
Mehmed was made responsible for 2347/Kara Mustafa Papa’s
failure at Vienna in 1683 and for subsequent disasters. He is said
to have accepted the decision gracefully with a ‘Kismet’ (Fate) on
his lips. 1
Mehmed IV’s two brothers, Suleyman II and Ahmed II, both
died in possession of the throne after brief reigns ; his son Mustafa II
was the next sultan to be dethroned. Although he had begun his
reign energetically, the forces ranged against the Ottoman Empire
were too strong and in 1699 Mustafa had been forced to accept the
humiliating Peace of Karlowitz. The Sultan then retired to Edirne
and government was left in the hands of the ‘Seyh-iil Islam’, Fey-
zullah Efendi, who had engineered the dismissal of Grand Vizir
Amcazade Huseyin Kopriilii. Feyzullah used his high office and
influence to amass a huge personal fortune and create an example
of nepotism almost unparalleled — by the extent of its ramifications
— in Ottoman history. Popular murmurings against the ‘§eyh’ soon
led to insurrections and he was cut to pieces at Edirne by an angry
mob of Janissaries. The troops were also mutinous because their pay
was heavily in arrears and so, to prevent further trouble, the vizirs
insisted on Mustafa II’s deposition in August 1703; he died a few
months later in the ‘Kafes’. 2
A similar fate, for almost similar reasons, awaited Mustafa’s suc-
cessor Ahmed III, whose reign of twenty-seven years falls into two
parts. The first from 1703 to 1718 was filled with military activity
which, though often successful, ended in the bitter terms of the
Treaty of Passarowitz. Ahmed managed to survive this disgrace and
then pursued a policy of peace at any price. In this he was aided by
his son-in-law, the new Grand Vizir, 24o6/Nev§ehirli Ibrahim Pa$a,
and for twelve years the Ottoman Empire enjoyed comparative
tranquillity. But instead of using this breathing-space to rebuild
the Empire’s defences, Sultan and Vizir embarked on a life of luxury
and pleasure with a nonchalance which recalls apres nous le deluge.
1 Uzun^ar^ih O.T. ill. i. 545. In 1691 there was a proposal to replace Mehmed on
the throne.
2 That there were religious reasons as well is shown by a popular poem; see Bayn,
in T.D. iii. 959.
DEPOSITIONS
67
It was the famous ‘Lale Devri’ (Tulip Time), when a single bulb
could sell for a gold piece and new palaces shot up overnight to
provide settings for an eternal round of garden-fetes and sumptuous
entertainments. When, therefore, in 1730, §ah Tahmasp II of Persia
attacked the Ottoman possessions, the Empire was completely un-
prepared. Infuriated by the Grand Vizir’s venality, by the Sultan’s
life of inordinate luxury — ‘which was rendered the more distasteful
to his subjects by its faintly European flavour’ 1 — and by his hesita-
tion in taking up the Persian challenge, the people and troops in
Istanbul revolted. They were led by Patrona Halil, a second-hand
clothes dealer and ex- Janissary from Albania, who seems at first
to have been quite disinterested, but later fell a victim to the lust
for power. 2 The Sultan sacrificed 2406/Ibrahim Pa$a and other
vizirs to the mob, but this did not save him; after three days of
wild rioting, Ahmed III was forced to accept his own deposition
in October 1730. He died six years later in the ‘Kafes’, during
which time his successor Mahmud I often consulted him on matters
of state.
The rest of the eighteenth century passed quietly, but the begin-
ning of the nineteenth brought two more depositions in quick succes-
sion. Selim III had been given a remarkably broad education by his
father Mustafa III and, during the reign of his uncle Abdiilhamid I,
was in constant communication with the French court; 3 in Selim
the seeds of reform found fertile soil. He set himself the super-
human task of reforming the whole structure of the Ottoman
Empire; his energetic mind penetrated everywhere: the army, the
navy, defence, finance, law, and social reform. 4 But naturally a ruler
who sought to interfere so radically in the lives of his subjects — a
people noted for their conservatism — was bound to meet with
opposition ; the more so as Selim’s reforms consisted largely in the
imposition of occidental customs and institutions. So, to the spirit
of reaction was added the spirit of chauvinism; however excellent
1 Gibb and Bowen, i. 38 and n. 3 : ‘He encouraged his courtiers, for instance, to build
pavilions on the hills round the “Kagidhane” (Sweet Waters of Europe) in imitation of
Marly. These, after his fall, were destroyed with gusto by the people — see de Tott,
Memoirs, i. 5.*
2 For the political story, see Shay, 17-38. 1246/Fatma, widow of Ibrahim Pa$a,
plotted for the return of her father, Ahmed III, and was imprisoned (in the ‘Eski
Saray’?). Ibid. 32. A contemporary account, by the Hungarian Kelemen Mikes, is
printed in Y.T.D, i. 175.
3 Uzun9ar§ih, in Belleten, 5-6, 19 1. 4 Karal, O.T. v. 57-79*
68
DEPOSITIONS
and necessary might be the work of the renegade Bonneval and the
Baron de Tott, they themselves were foreigners and therefore to be
execrated. Thus the really surprising thing is not that Selim was
deposed, but that he was able to avoid that fate for so long. His
reforming zeal carried him forward year after year but at the same
time cut across more and more private interests ; those most seri-
ously affected were of course the Janissaries who saw, in the newly
formed ‘Nizam-i Cedit’ (Troops of the New Order), a direct threat
to the monopoly of political and military power which they had held
almost since their creation four centuries earlier. Early in 1807 there
were serious risings in the Balkans and a conspiracy — led by the
‘Seyh-ul Islam’, the ‘Kaymakam’ of Istanbul, and Kabakfi Mustafa
Aga — between the Janissaries and the Bosphorus garrisons cul-
minated on 29 May in the slaughter of many leading reformers and
the deposition of the Sultan.
Selim Ill’s successor was his cousin Mustafa IV — weak and
feeble-minded, if not actually mad — who was completely under the
thumb of the revolutionaries. However, Selim’s deposition was not
to go unavenged ; from Ruschuk came Alemdar Mustafa Pa$a, a great
military leader. When he marched on Istanbul in the summer of
1808, with the intention of restoring Selim to the throne, Sultan
Mustafa took the most drastic steps to ensure his own survival. For
many years the House of Osman had been remarkably unfruitful;
few children had been born and the majority of these had died in
their infancy. 1 So it happened that on 28 July 1808 the lives of only
two princes — the ex-sultan Selim III and the future sultan Mah-
mud II — stood between Mustafa IV and the extinction of the
dynasty. Could he but kill these two, Mustafa would be safe, for
even his most convinced enemies would balk at the idea of putting
an end to the House of Osman ; so he gave orders for their deaths. 2
Selim was soon found in his prison and after a brave fight was cut
down and his body flung at the feet of Alemdar Mustafa Pa§a as he
invaded the Saray. Mahmud, however, had escaped with the help
of some of the harem-slaves and after an exciting chase round the
chimney-pots was rescued and brought down to sit on the throne.
Meanwhile Mustafa IV had been deposed and imprisoned ; some
four months later he was executed during a rising of the Janis-
1 See p. 102.
2 Karal, O.T. v. 92-93; and T.D. dzel iii. 19-26.
DEPOSITIONS
69
saries in his favour. So for a period of three or four years Mahmud II
did become the sole male representative of his dynasty. 1
With one exception all the last six rulers of the Ottoman Empire
(that is, including the Caliph, Abdiilmecid) were deposed, though
for very varying reasons. The strong reign of Mahmud II and the
progressive spirit of Abdiilmecid I both helped to re-establish the
dynasty in the people’s favour. The next sultan, however, was
Abdiilaziz; he was a very weak character living chiefly for the
pleasures of luxury and the harem, which led him to neglect affairs
of state and yet make intolerable demands on the Empire’s finances.
Fifteen years of his rule brought the Ottoman Empire to the brink
of financial disaster and in the end a group of ministers — which
included Grand Vizir Rii§dii Pa§a, ‘Serasker’ Huseyin Avni Pa$a,
and the liberal Midhat Pa§a — decided that Abdiilaziz must be de-
posed. On 30 May 1876 he was replaced by his nephew Murad V ;
five days later Abdiilaziz committed suicide in circumstances which,
to many contemporaries, suggested murder — though for the latter
there is no corroborative evidence. 2
Once more the system of eldest-male inheritance and the limita-
tions placed on the freedom of the heir combined together against
the fortunes of the Ottoman Empire. In his youth Mehmed Murad V
had been granted much freedom, had received a comparatively
broad education, and had shown signs that he would make a good
ruler; so much so that many of the liberal leaders, like Midhat Pa§a,
were eagerly looking forward to his accession. But in the later years
of his uncle’s reign Murad had fallen under suspicion of plotting to
usurp the throne. 3 For this there may have been some grounds, for
he is known to have had relations with Namik Kemal and other
leaders of the Young Turk Society; in any case, it led to his being
kept under close surveillance and he often went in fear of his life.
In compensation for these troubles Murad became a confirmed
alcoholic, and the combined effect was to make him a nervous
wreck. So when Murad V became sultan his mind was, at least tem-
porarily, unbalanced; the excitement and stress of his accession
made necessary the indefinite postponement of the Girding Cere-
mony. Almost immediately afterwards came the shock of Abdiilaziz’s
1 Including the father of the historian Ata Tayyar Efendi, and Cevri Kalfa; see B.
Miller, Palace School, 8. For Mustafa IV’s death, see §ehsuvaroglu, in R.T.M. iv. 1964.
2 All the relevant documents are in $ehsuvaroglu, Aziz , 134-43 ar *d Inal,
Sadrazamlar , 516 ff. 3 §ehsuvaroglu, ibid. 51.
70
DEPOSITIONS
suicide, which not only increased his own nervous tension but served
also to emphasize the strain of abnormality in the family. Soon after
Murad received another blow with the assassination of the ‘Serasker’
Hiiseyin Avni Pa?a by £erkes Hasan Bey, who was related to
Abdiilaziz through one of his wives. 1 The Sultan became more and
more depressed and the ministers arranged for him to be examined
by several doctors and even brought the famous mental specialist,
Dr. Leidesdorf, from Vienna. The consensus of medical opinion
was that, while there was some hope of an eventual cure — as in truth
happened — the prospect of any immediate improvement was very
doubtful. 2 In the circumstances Grand Vizir Rii^dii Pa§a and the
other Ministers decided that the only safe course was to declare the
Sultan deposed, as there was no precedent for a regency. 3 In any
case Abdiilhamid refused to accept only the shadow of power, pre-
ferring to wait, if need be, for the reality. So on 31 August 1876
Murad V passed to a retirement in the £iragan Sarayi which closely
resembled imprisonment 4 and lasted twenty-eight years. His place
on the throne was taken by his brother Abdiilhamid II, who had
been intriguing to that end for some time. 5
When Abdiilhamid II succeeded to the throne he gave guarantees
— some say written ones 6 — to proclaim a Constitution and this was
done in December of the same year. Three months later, having
dismissed Midhat Pa$a and the other liberal leaders, Abdiilhamid
dissolved the Chamber which had just been elected and suspended
the Constitution ; but it remained in people’s minds as the ideal of
government. For the next thirty years the Sultan ruled as an abso-
lute despot, with subservient ministers and an empire- wide system
of spies and denunciations. 7 In spite of this an underground opposi-
tion steadily grew; generically it was known as the Young Turk
movement and was spread throughout the Ottoman Empire and
among political exiles abroad; specifically there were various
organizations, the most important of which was the ‘Ittihad ve
Terakki Cemiyeti’ (Committee of Union and Progress — or C.U.P.),
1 £erkes Hasan was a son of Ismail Bey and so a brother of 405/Nesrin, who was in
the harem of Abdiilaziz.
2 $ehsuvaroglu, ibid. 163; Uzunyar^ih, in Belleten , 38. 317. 3 See p. 48.
4 Not unnaturally when one considers the attempts to restore him to the throne
see p. 29.
5 §ehsuvarogIu, ibid. 164-73. 6 Ibid. 171.
7 A vivid picture of the effects of this system on the ordinary lives of the people is
given in H. Edib’s novel, Sinekli Bakkal (in English, The Clozcn and his Daughter).
DEPOSITIONS
7i
centred in Macedonia. In 1908 the foreign relations of the Empire
were in a dangerous state, chiefly because of troubles in the Balkans
and consequent threats of interference by the Powers (the Anglo-
Russian meeting at Reval). The C.U.P., therefore, showed its hand
and various units of the Third Army Corps, stationed in Mace-
donia, revolted and demanded of the Sultan the restitution of the
Constitution of 1876. Abdiilhamid submitted to the limitation of
his powers and on 23 July the Constitution was brought into force
again. There was great popular rejoicing as the Young Turks took
over the government with Kamil Pa§a as grand vizir, but they were
inexperienced in the art of administration and divided among them-
selves as to their aims and interests.
Outwardly the most correct of constitutional monarchs — so that
many observers believed him genuinely converted — Abdiilhamid
lost no time in planning the overthrow of the Constitution once
again ; he disbursed large sums of money to finance subversive activi-
ties and secretly gave his support to such reactionary groups as the
‘Cemiyet-i Mehmediye’ (The Muhammedan League). On 13 April
1909 a counter-revolution broke out among the troops garrisoned
in the capital. Immediately Mahmud §evket Pa§a, commander of
the Third Army Corps, rallied the forces at his disposal and marched
on Istanbul without delay to re-establish the C.U.P. and the Con-
stitution; he arrived in the city on 24 April and crushed the mutiny
with little bloodshed. Two days later Abdiilhamid was a virtual
prisoner in Yildiz Sarayi and after a further twenty-four hours a
deputation from the National Assembly visited him. Headed by
General Esad Pa§a,it announced to the Sultan the ‘Fetva’ of Deposi-
tion. 1 The same evening a further deputation informed the Sultan
that he was to be transferred a prisoner to the Villa Allatini near
Salonika; he left by special train in the early hours of 28 April.
During the Balkan Wars, when Salonika was threatened by the
enemy, the ex-sultan was brought back to Istanbul (1.10.1912) and
spent the remaining years in Beylerbeyi Sarayi. 2
It is clear that with the deposition of Abdiilhamid II the sultans
had moved into a new era, when they no longer had to deal with
secret palace intrigues or the revolts of disaffected sections of their
1 See p. 75, n . i.
2 His return to Istanbul in the German Embassy boat Lorelei is described in R.T.M.
by S. Lozan; his last days at Beylerbeyi in R.T.M . i. 562 by Z. §akir. For the
events of 1908-9 see the books of eyewitnesses like Abbott and McCulIagh.
DEPOSITIONS
72
troops, but were faced with the openly expressed will of political
parties — representative of large groups of the people — working
through parliamentary institutions and backed by responsible
military forces. Here at last was the rational fulfilment of the ‘demo-
cratic contract’ implicit in the dual institution of sultan-caliphate.
The last sultan to be deposed was the last of all the sultans,
Mehmed VI Vahdeddin. The World War of 1914-18 left the Otto-
man Empire crushed and dismembered but, for some at least of her
people, suffering had only served to strengthen their patriotism. The
Sultan and his government were cowed and completely submissive
to every dictate of the Occupying Powers, but in Anatolia there was
a rising wave of unrest, which might well prove a source of trouble
between conquered and conqueror. To assert his own authority and
at the same time satisfy the Allied demands, the Sultan on 15 May
1919 dispatched Mustafa Kemal Pa§a to Samsun with a mission for
the general pacification of Anatolia. Unwittingly Mehmed VI had
chosen the one person in Turkey most bitterly opposed to the
authorities in Istanbul and at the same time most capable of lead-
ing the Turkish people and binding them into a strong, compact
nation. By 1 1 October 1922 (Armistice of Mudanya) Mustafa Kemal
had united the country, fought a successful campaign against a
foreign invader, and was in a position to treat on more than equal
terms with the Sultan, his liege lord. Mehmed VI, on the other
hand, seemed ready to take advantage of all that the Nationalists
had gained and yet set them aside completely, with intent to retain
all power in the hands of his own palace-government. But Mustafa
Kemal was not the one to stand quietly by and watch the clock being
put back ; his reply was immediate, characteristic, and unmistakable.
On 1 November 1922, under his directions, the Grand National
Assembly sitting in Ankara abolished the sultanate, took over the
government of the whole country — subject only to the controls of
the Occupying Powers in Istanbul — and left Mehmed VI with only
such shreds of power as attached to the caliphate. Thus checkmated
and fearing to be put in prison, Mehmed VI decided on flight; he
applied to the Powders for political asylum and escaped secretly on
H.M.S. Malaya, first to Malta and then the Riviera. 1 As soon as the
news of his flight was learned in Ankara the ‘§eriye Vekili’ (Minister
for Religious Affairs) issued, at the request of the Grand National
1 See §ehsuvaroglu, in R.T.M. i. 406, and Sertoglu, in T.D. iv. 1342.
DEPOSITIONS
73
Assembly, the ‘Fetva’ of Deposition, accusing him of collusion with,
and seeking the protection of, the enemy, and of abandoning the
caliphate. 1 In one sense Mehmed VI can be said to have abdicated,
since he left the country of his own volition; but he had certainly
been deposed from the position of sultan, and the conditions in
which he had been allowed to continue as caliph can at best be
described as ‘under duress’. Admittedly his flight was undignified
and served to increase the unpopularity of himself and his dynasty;
even such a friend as 2618/Serif Ali Hayder could write in his diary:
‘I was both amazed and disgusted at his action! May God preserve
us from such a weak-kneed Sultan.’ 2 Yet it was only the recognition
of a fait accompli ; had Mehmed VI chosen to remain and insist on
his rights, the manner of his going might have been much more
unpleasant.
This was the first step in Mustafa Kemal’s logical plan for creat-
ing the New Turkey. On 18 November 1922 Mehmed Vi’s cousin
Abdiilmecid (II) was designated caliph and he assumed office six
days later; but it w r as a ceremony shorn of all its glory and there
could, of course, be no Girding with the Sword at Eyiib. Within a
year the country had been proclaimed a Republic (29 October 1923)
and all the time Mustafa Kemal was preparing the way to abolish
the caliphate as well. Again Ali Hayder’s comments are illuminating :
‘I quite see that a Republic is more suitable under the changed conditions,
provided that everything is placed on a sound footing. A Republic should give
a better form of government to the people and enable them to progress. The
Caliph, however, should be retained as the head of all the Muslims and his
office respected ; but I foresee that the trend of opinion in the government will
lead to the abolition of the caliphate with the consequent disintegration of
Muslims. This, to my mind, is bad; but the Turkish Imperial Family are
largely to blame .’ 3
Abdiilmecid was not unpopular at first, but he failed to appreciate
the spirit of the times ; by many little acts — from signing himself :
'Abdiilmecid bin Abdiilaziz Han’, to employing a veritable ‘royal’
language — he dug his own grave. ‘Abdiilmecid has tried to make
1 Ibid. 407; the text is in Inal, Sadrazamlar y 1745.
2 See Hayder, 250. There is a story that Talat Pa§a had planned to get rid of
Mehmed VI soon after his accession, because of incompatible policies; but it was
abortive. See Sazhdere, in R.T.M. iii. 1361.
3 Hayder, 266. Mustafa Kemal had, in 1920, invited Abdiilmecid to join the National-
ists, but the latter refused; see Ataker, in R.T,M. iii. 1498.
74
DEPOSITIONS
himself both a caliph and a sultan, and he has not properly asso-
ciated himself with the National Party — neither has he tried to adapt
himself to the changed conditions. If he had adopted the simple life
of the caliphs of old, he might have saved himself and his position.’ 1
These things made it all the easier for Mustafa Kemal to persuade
his followers — many of them conservative and deeply religious — to
his own way of thinking. His task was accomplished on 3 March
1924, when the Grand National Assembly voted the Abolition of the
Caliphate. The wider international aspects of this decision, which of
course directly affected the whole of ‘Sunni’ (Orthodox) Islam, have
no place in this book. 2
At the same time it was decided to rid the country of the remain-
ing scions of the House of Osman; all members of the royal family
were declared exiled and forbidden to return to Turkey — a provi-
sion which has been relaxed since 1947. So it was a numerous con-
tingent which accompanied or prepared to follow the last Ottoman
ruler on the night of 4 March 1924 on his journey from Istanbul to
the frontier. 3
It is thus possible to distinguish five separate groups in the list
of depositions. 4 The first consists of three cases, spaced out over
slightly more than a century and each one unique for the causes
which brought it about : military defeat, premature abdication, and
filial usurpation. The third and major group of eight depositions
were much of a muchness; sometimes the sultans w^ere to blame,
but in every case action was taken by some small group aiming
to improve its own position at the expense of a change of sultan.
Only the last of these, the deposition of Abdtilaziz, reveals the same
feeling for the welfare of the state as marks the three depositions in
the fifth group. Curiously, the three main groups are marked off
from each other by depositions for madness, permanent and incur-
able in the case of Mustafa I, temporary in that of Murad V.
1 Hayder, 268.
2 These are discussed in Hayder, 270, &c.
3 All this is described in a series of articles in T.D. i. 24, &c., by Yalkin, who was
present during the negotiations with Abdulmecid. For the subsequent fate of these
princes and princesses, see A. R., in R.T.M. i. 480, and Orik, in R.T.M. iii. 1782. The
law imposing permanent exile on the House of Osman was modified in 1947 and 1951 ;
some members have since returned to Turkey and have reassumed Turkish nationality,
see newspaper reports (Cumhuriyet, See,) for 22 Oct. 1953 and 17 March 1955; typical
of these are 1430/Fatma Ulviye and her husband 2723/Ali Haydar.
4 See Table XI, p. 76.
DEPOSITIONS
75
Except for the depositions of the first group, the legal procedure
for deposition was always completed, application for a ‘Fetva’ being
made to the ‘Fetva Emini*, an officer under the ‘Seyh-iil Islam*.
Attributed to a fictitious person, the sultan’s faults were set out in
detail; the hypothetical question was then put whether such a per-
son, if sultan, would have merited deposition. 1 The ‘Fetva Emini*
and his superior were always sufficiently alive to the current poli-
tical issues — and the safety of their own skins — to give an affirma-
tive answer, but the due process of law was never neglected.
Once deposed, a sultan had to retire completely from the scene
of action, even if he avoided a more tragic fate. Young Mehmed II
was sent back to his province, while the aged Bayezid sought to
retire to Dimetoka. From the seventeenth century to the early
nineteenth, the ex-sultans spent their remaining years in the ‘Kafes*.
But, beginning with Abdiilaziz, a more enlightened policy pre-
vailed and they were allowed to retire under close guard to some
smaller palace or were sent into exile. 2 The salient point is that
under Muslim Law there could not be two sultans — once one had
been effectively deposed by ‘Fetva* and replaced, he ceased to have
any rights to the throne. There was, therefore, never any question
as to who was the rightful sultan and who the usurper: de facto was
also de jure . As a result few attempts were ever made to replace a
deposed sultan and — excepting Mehmed II and Mustafa I — they
all ended tragically; Ibrahim, Selim III, and Mustafa IV lost their
lives and Murad V*s imprisonment became more strict. 3
No dynasty in history, showing such a general record of per-
manence as the 650 years of the House of Osman, has at the same
time been so subject to individual upheavals, with its total of seven-
teen depositions shared among thirty-seven rulers.
1 Typical is the ‘Fetva’ of Abdiilhamid II, quoted in Abbott, Turkey , 258. ‘Question:
If Zeid, Imam of all the Faithful, after having caused certain holy books to be burned,
appropriated public estates contrary to the Sacred Law, killed, imprisoned and banished
many of his subjects, and after having perpetrated all sorts of other abominations swore
to re-enter the path of righteousness, but broke his oath and raised a civil war; if from
many parts of the country came messages that they consider the aforesaid Zeid as
deposed; and if it were beyond doubt that his preservation would be prejudicial, while
his deposition might be beneficial — is it lawful either to ask him to abdicate his office of
Imam and Sultan, or to dethrone him according as men competent and wise may think
best? — Answer: Yes.’
2 Abdiilaziz to Feriye Sarayi, Murad V to Qiragan Sarayi, Abdiilhamid II to Villa
Allatini and Beylerbeyi Sarayi; Mehmed VI and Abdulmecid (II) to exile in the south
of France.
3 See p. 52.
76
DEPOSITIONS
Table XI. Depositions
Sultan
Date
Comments
A. 4/Bayezid I
28. 7. 1402
By Timur; military defeat; survived
for eight months.
7/Mehmed II
9. 1446
By Vizirs and Janissaries; for incapa-
city; re-accession five years later.
8/Bayezid II
24. 4. 1512
By Selim I and Janissaries; for in-
capacity; survived one month.
B. 15/Mustafa I
26. 2. 1618
10. 9. 1623
By Vizirs; for madness; re-accession
four years later.
By Vizirs; for madness; survived six-
teen years.
C. 16/Osman II
19. 5. 1622
By Janissaries; for attacks on Janis-
saries ; assassinated one day later.
18/ibrahim
8. 8. 1648
By popular ill will and palace intrigue;
for luxury and military failure;
assassinated after twenty days.
19/Mehmed IV
8. 11. 1687
By Vizirs ; for military failures ; sur-
vived five years.
22/Mustafa II
23. 8. 1703
By Vizirs; for military failures and
Feyzullah scandal; survived four
months.
23 /Ahmed III
1. 10. 1730
By Patrona Halil and the Army; for
military weakness and luxury; sur-
vived six years.
28/Selim III
29. 5- 1807
By Janissaries; for Western ideas and
attacks on Janissaries; assassinated
after fourteen months.
29/Mustafa IV
28. 7. 1808
By Alemdar Mustafa Pa$a; for
revenge; assassinated after four
months.
32/Abdiilaziz
30. 5. 1876
By Vizirs; for luxury and financial
failures; committed suicide after
five days.
D. 33/Murad V
31. 8. 1876
By Vizirs ; for presumed madness ; sur-
vived twenty-eight years.
E. 34/Abdiilhamid II
27. 4. 1909
By Young Turks; for unconstitu-
tional despotism; survived nine
years.
36/Mehmed VI
1. 11. 1922
By Turkish Nationalists; for reaction
and intrigues with the Occupying
Powers ; survived three years.
37/AbduImecid (II)
only Caliph
3 . 3 - 1924
By Turkish Nationalists; for reaction;
survived twenty years.
XI
THE HAREM
There exist many studies in greater or less detail of the harem as a
whole, 1 but here we are concerned with it only in so far as it affected
members of the Ottoman dynasty. All the authorities, with one
accord, complain of the paucity of material available, and this is
even more true when we are considering the actual people who
inhabited it. The royal harem was the ‘holy of holies’ within the
Saray, protected from prying eyes by an impenetrable cloud of
taboos. Although in the course of time many did succeed in piecing
together a reasonably accurate account of its structure and per-
sonalities, this applies only to the post-1453 period, after the court
was established in Istanbul. Of its organization in the earlier capitals
of Yeni§ehir, Bursa, and Edirne almost nothing is known because,
one suspects, there was very little to be known. As long as the
Ottoman Turks retained their primitive tribal institutions, the
harem must have been of a very simple nature, little more elaborate
than the women’s quarters of any other tribal ruler. 2 However, the
expansion of the Ottoman Empire, the sultans’ increasing prestige
in the lands bordering the Aegean, coupled with the example of
luxurious ceremonial still surviving at the Byzantine court, 3 must
all have combined to bring about a heightening of the dignity and
complexity of the harem of the Ottoman sultans, as a little ‘court
within a court’. This process probably began with the transfer from
Bursa to Edirne in Murad Ts reign; admittedly its organization
must have suffered severely during the Interregnum, although 540/
Emir Suleyman did maintain some state at Edirne. It is clear, how-
ever, that its machinery was functioning steadily once more by
the time of Murad II, when we see the preparations made for the
1 It figures largely in the accounts of the old travellers, there are special studies like
those of B. Miller and Penzer, and detailed references in Gibb and Bowen, i. 73 ff.,
and Lybyer, passim.
2 An interesting, if imaginative, picture of Osman I’s harem is to be found in
Tulbentsi’s novel Osmanogullari , passim.
3 Which Orhan, for one, must have witnessed at the time of his relations with 153 ij
John Cantacuzenus.
Istanbul and its environs
Scale i : 187,500
THE HAREM
79
selection of a bride for Mehmed II and for the reception of the
chosen 120/Sitt Dulkadirli. 1
When Mehmed II had conquered Constantinople, he proceeded
to build a palace in the centre of the city (the site of the present
University) and after some time the harem was brought there from
Edirne. Later Mehmed II decided to build a second and more
magnificent palace, the one known to history as Top-Kapi Sarayx
(Cannon-Gate Palace), on the site of the ancient Byzantium. At
first, this was kept entirely separate as an administrative building,
while the Sultan's family remained in the earlier palace, which came
to be known as the Eski Saray (Old Palace). Gradually the harem
sought to infiltrate into the newer buildings, but it was not until a
fortunate fire destroyed her apartments, c. 1550, that 151/Hurrem
Sultan could persuade Suleyman I to grant her permanent quarters
in the Top-Kapi Sarayi. By 1585, however, all the principal ladies
had been transferred there, 2 the Eski Saray being reserved for
women who had lost their status in the harem. The harem was thus
established on the doorstep — or, more exactly, the back-doorstep —
of the ‘Divan 5 (Council-chamber) and the way was open for expan-
sion into politics and so to the ‘Kadinlar Saltanati 5 .
There the harem remained, with minor excursions to Kagidhane,
Uskiidar, Buylikdere, and occasionally to Edirne, until the nine-
teenth century, when the sultans began building on an extensive
scale along the shores of the Bosphorus. Then the harem came to be
housed successively in Dolmabahfe Sarayi and Yildiz Sarayi ; under
Mahmud II the Eski Saray was appropriated to the War Ministry
and so its female inmates were allowed to enjoy the faded glories of
the Top-Kapi Sarayi.
Apart from the multitude of female slaves and eunuch-guards,
the harem contained a group of women chosen for their beauty and
destined for the pleasure and service of the sultan. They were
organized in pyramidal form, at the base of which were the Ԥagir-
deler 5 (Novices), 3 from which class, after wholesale eliminations,
the most talented in arts and beauty were promoted to be ‘Gedik-
liler 5 (Privileged Ones). It was at this stage that they first came into
1 See Babinger, Sitt , 223. 2 Lybyer, 121; Z. Ergins in T.D. i. 362.
3 It must be remembered that the harem was organized in the same way as the
Palace School for men (see B. Miller’s book). There were two chambers for the recruits,
where they were taught housework, sewing, embroidery, manners and deportment,
Islamics, dancing, music, and culture — see Lybyer, 78.
8o
THE HAREM
direct personal contact with the sultan and in accordance with his
desires, he chose those who were to share his bed. 1 A girl thus
honoured was known as ‘Gozde’ (In Favour) and if the relationship
showed any signs of permanence, she was promoted to the rank of
‘Ikbal’ or ‘Hasodalik’ (Fortunate), envied by all for her good for-
tune and courted for the influence she might wield.
Should the relations of the ‘Ikbal’ with her master lead to the
birth of a child, she rose still higher in the harem hierarchy. The
mother of a son received the title of ‘Haseki Sultan’ (Princess
Favourite), the mother of a daughter that of ‘Haseki Kadm’ (Lady
Favourite). The four senior ‘Hasekiler’ 2 formed an inner group,
who were in receipt of special incomes (‘Has’ or ‘Ba§maklik’ — what
might be called ‘pin-money’); 3 they dominated the social activities
of the harem and were led by the ‘Ba$ Haseki Sultan’ (Chief),
mother of the Sultan’s eldest son. 4 But over all was the presiding
genius of the ‘Valide Sultan’ (Princess Mother). 5 Her day of triumph
came when her son ascended the throne and she succeeded as ‘the
first lady in the land’, above all the ‘Hasekiler’. Particularly during
the Later Period, when son did not succeed father directly, the
sultan’s wives were relegated to the ‘Eski Saray’ at his death or
1 The old story of the sultan dropping his handkerchief at the feet of the favoured
girl is largely discredited.
2 Under Mahmud I there were six and under Abdiilhamid I seven. Uzun^ar^ili,
S.T. 152, and in l.A. ‘Haseki’, says that the position of the ‘Hasekiler’ did not depend
on the birth of a child, but this is contrary to the opinion of most of the old writers
(such as von Hammer and d’Ohsson) whom he quotes.
3 It was the wild extravagance of these payments under Ibrahim which forced the
vizirs to embark on a wholesale scheme for the sale of offices to raise extra revenue;
this corruption gravely aggravated the decline of the Empire. Uzumpar^ih, O.T. 111. i.
2 33 - 4 .
4 ‘And if it happened that the first begotten son of the Queen (heir to the Emperor)
should die, and another of the Sultanas [he] should have a second son, then her son
being to succeed the deceased heir, she is immediately made Queen, and the former
shall remain a Sultana only ; so the title of Queen runneth from one Sultana to another
by virtue of the son’s succession.’ Source unknown.
5 Chalcocondyles, 116: ‘Les Othomans ont d’ordinaire aussi peu d’amiti£ pour
leurs sceurs qu’ils ont beaucoup de respect pour leurs m£res; lesquelles peuvent
facilement si elles ont tant soit peu d’adresse et de conduite, retenir l’empire que la
nature leur a donne sur eux et avoir bonne part au gouvemement, mais si elles en
abusent la milice ne le souffre pas, et contraint leurs fils a les renfermer au foods d’un
s£rail.’ Deny, in E.I., ‘Valide Sultanlar’, points out that the title means ‘Sultan
Mother’ and not ‘Mother of the Sultan’. In the Early Period they had been known by
the Seljuk title of ‘Hatun’ (Lady), but from the reign of Selim I this was changed to
‘Valide Sultan* — Uzungar^ili, S.T. 154, says from the time of Murad III. Other titles
used were: ‘Mehd-i Ulyay-i Saltanat’ (Cradle of the Great Sultan) and ‘Sedef-i Durr-i
Hilafet’ (Shell of the Pearl of the Caliphate). See p. 83, Table XII.
THE HAREM
81
deposition ; so it was there that the new r Valide Sultan’ was to be
found, and she was brought back to the harem with great cere-
mony. 1 Should there be no ‘Valide Sultan’ living, or should she die
during her son’s reign, the office and sometimes the title devolved
on the Sultan’s wet-nurse 2 or on the ‘Hazinedar Usta’ (Chief of the
Harem Women), or occasionally on a stepmother of the new sultan. 3
This is not the place to describe the ‘Kadmlar Saltanati’; suffice
it to say that during the seventeenth century the ladies of the harem,
led by the ‘Valide Sultanlar’, exercised enormous influence over the
government of the Ottoman Empire. The most remarkable of these
ladies were 191/Kosem Mahpeyker and 245/Rabia Giilnu?, each of
whom filled the office for two of her sons ; the former achieved the
greater distinction by virtue of the power she wielded. Even on
the deposition of her second son Ibrahim, she avoided relegation to
the Eski Saray and retained power during the first three years of the
reign of her grandson Mehmed IV, ruling with the title of ‘Buyiik
Valide’ (Grandmother). 4 In the end, however, the young Sultan’s
mother, 229/Turhan Hadice Valide Sultan, asserted her own rights
and took part in the plot to assassinate Kosem.
On the death of a sultan the social structure of the harem col-
lapsed. The ‘Valide Sultan’, if still alive, all his ‘Hasekiler’, 5 and
any unmarried daughters were transferred to the Eski Saray. 6 The
position of the ‘Valide Sultan’ was then hopeless, unless she had
another son who might one day reach the throne. Similarly, the
mothers of sons were confined in perpetuo unless their sons should
1 For the ‘Valde Alayi’ (Mother’s Procession) see Uzunfar^ih, S.T. 154-6. Deny,
ibid., quotes Andr^ossy to the effect that on this one occasion the ‘Valide Sultan’ might
appear in public unveiled.
2 Deny, ibid., gives her title as ‘siit-valide’, ‘taya kadm’, or ‘daye hatun\
3 Abdulhamid II’s mother died while he was still a boy and he was adopted by his
stepmother 390/Perestu Hamm, who also took the title. The same thing happened
to Mehmed VI.
4 On many occasions she seems to have actually taken part in meetings of the Divan.
Uzun£ar§ili, O.T. hi. i. 251. From the letters published by Ulu^ay, Haremden Mek-
tuplar , it is clear that from the earliest times the wives of the sultans interested them-
selves in political appointments, see Y.T.D. i. 162—3; an d 361/Bezmialem Valide
Sultan had quite a strong influence — see $ehsuvaroglu, in R.T.M. iv. 2098.
3 If any of these then married outside the Saray and it subsequently transpired
that they were pregnant by the late sultan, any such children were not recognized.
593/BveysP. is said to have been a son of Selim I, Grand Vizir Hekimoglu Ali Pa?a
of Mustafa II, and Zuliiflu Ismail Pa$a of Abdulmecid I, but there is no proof of
such parentage.
6 The only exception was 430/Safmaz, whom Abdulhamid II obtained from his
uncle’s harem while Abdiilaziz was still ruling — see Nuri, quoted in T.D. i. 444.
5707
G
8 2
THE HAREM
one day succeed to the throne, when they automatically became
‘Valide Sultanlar’. From this it followed that the mother of the heir-
presumptive was the person treated with the greatest deference in
the Eski Saray. Mothers of daughters only were, it seems, free to
leave the Saray and marry again, as w T ere the late sultan’s ‘Gedik-
filer’. Daughters remained in the Eski Saray until such time as some
future sultan saw fit to marry them to his vizirs ; their only consola-
tion was the annual visit of the sultan on the third day of Ԥeker
Bayram’ (Sugar Festival), when they also were allowed to present
their congratulations to him. 1
In spite of repeated attempts to limit the harem, it always tended
to reach enormous proportions and at peak periods must have con-
tained upwards of two thousand women. In 1861 Abdiilaziz made
heroic efforts at economy by disbanding his predecessor’s extensive
harem and by declaring that he would keep only one wife; but
he ended his reign with seven ‘Hasekiler’ and about two hundred
concubines of lesser rank. 2 It was not until after the dispersal of
Abdiilhamid II’s harem that it was again reduced to reasonable
proportions. 3
1 An interesting case was that of 1392/Fehime and 1393/Hadice, both daughters of
Murad V, who were allowed to join Abdulhamid’s harem on condition they never saw
their father again. They repeatedly protested at not being married; finally their trous-
seaux were exposed at the palace and husbands were found.
2 Brockelmann, 369: ‘But all Istanbul had an interest in the expenditure connected
with the Harem; consequently it was impossible for him to swim against the stream and
in a short time the new sultan developed into an arch-libertine/
3 McCullagh, 213, describes how relatives were summoned from the Caucasus and
elsewhere to reclaim the women — the emotions engendered and the subsequent
tragedies of maladjustment may be easily imagined.
THE HAREM
83
TableXII. Mothers of the Sultans
Sultan
Mother
Origin
1 /Osman I
?
Ottoman ?
2/Orhan
56/Mai Hatun
Ottoman
3 /Murad I
62/NiIiifer
Greek
4/Bayezid I
70/ Giil£ i^ek
Greek
5/Mehmed I
%2jDevlet§ah
Germiyanoglu
6/Murad II
90/Emine
Dulkadirli
7/Mehmed II
102/Hiima
?
8/Bayezid II
1 isiGiilbahar
Ottoman
9/Selim I
i3o/Ay?e
Dulkadirli
10/Suleyman I
141/Hafise (Hafsa)
Ottoman/Circassian ?
1 1 /Selim II
151/Hurrem
Slav ?
12/Murad III
1 6 1 jNurubanu
Venetian?
13/Mehmed III
17 3 /Safiye
?
1 4/ Ahmed I
180 IHandan
?
15/Mustafa I
180/Handan
?
16/Osman II
192/Mahfiruze (Hadice)
Greek ?
17/Murad IV
1 91 /Kosem Mahpeyker
Greek
1 8/ Ibrahim
191 jKosem Mahpeyker
Greek
19/Mehmed IV
22g/Turhan Hadice
Russian ?
20/Siileyman II
225 jSaliha Dilasub
?
2 1 /Ahmed II
220/Hadice Muazzez
?
22/Mustafa II
245/Rafoh Giilnus
Cretan
23/ Ahmed III
245 IRabia Giilnu§
Cretan
24/Mahmud I
265 jSaliha
?
25/Osman III
266 l$ehsuvar
Russian
26/Mustafa III
276/Mihri?ah
?
27/Abdulhamid I
278/Rabia ^ermi
p
28/Selim III
^i^lMihri§ah
Georgian
29/Mustafa IV
222jAyse Seniyeperver
?
30/Mahmud II
327 jNaksidil
p
31/Abdulmecid I
361 / Bezmialem
Georgian
32/Abdiilaziz
373 IPertevniyal
?
33/Murad V
296l$evkefza
Circassian
34/Abdulhamid II
397/Tirimujgan
Circassian
35/Mehmed V
382/Giilcemal
?
36/Mehmed VI
383/Gulustii
Circassian
37/Abdulmecid (II)
403/Hayranidil
p
Note, Only the mothers whose names are in italics were entitled to be called ‘Valide
Sultan’; as far as is known, all the others died before the accession of their sons.
THE ANATOLIAN EMIRATES AND THE BALKANS
<*. 1355
Scale 1 : 13,500,000
With acknowledgements to F. R. XJnat '
XII
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
The key to the history of many dynasties lies in their marriage
policies. The pattern of marriages 1 in the House of Osman is
extremely complex, not only because of the influence of polygamy,
but more because there are variations on five different types of
marital union during four distinct periods. These periods 2 are:
‘Early’ (1280-1451), ‘Transition’ (1451-1520), ‘Middle’ (1520-
1870), and ‘Late’ (1870-1924). The types of marriages are: first,
with women of conquered peoples, Christian or Muslim, as a proof
of subjugation or because of personal attractions; second, with
women of Christian ruling families to cement alliances; 3 third, with
women or men of Muslim ruling families, also to cement alliances ;
fourth, with women or men of Ottoman race; fifth, with female
slaves of varied and generally unknown origin.
During the Early Period it is a little difficult to distinguish among
marriages of the first three types. It often happened that, having
defeated and occupied a state, the Ottoman Turks withdrew accord-
ing to the terms of a treaty, which was to be guaranteed by a mar-
riage between the two ruling families. 4 It is a moot point whether
particular unions were arranged as a clear proof of subjugation or
to solidify an alliance. Clearly, the marriage of Orhan with 62/
Niliifer of Yarhisar in 1299 symbolized the annexation of her father’s
estates, though her personal qualities may have counted as well. 5
But the series of marriages with the rulers of Serbia and Karamania
were border-line cases. 81 /Despina married Bayezid I subsequent
1 Unless specifically given other meanings, the following words are used only in the
general sense explained here: ‘marriage’ is any kind of union between the sultans or
their sons and women, or between the sultans’ daughters and men ; the words ‘husband*
and ‘wife’ are used of the partners of any such union; ‘harem’ is the collection of a
man’s womenfolk.
2 It is only in this chapter that the terms ‘Early Period* and ‘Late Period’ have these
particular meanings.
3 There are no examples of the daughter of a sultan being given in marriage to a
Christian ruler. See Table XXIV, Bayezid I, note 25.
4 For example, (Ta)mara Shishman’s marriage to Murad I, 1370, was a pledge
of fealty to a new' suzerain on the part of her brother, John Alexander III.
5 von Hammer, i. 186, gives a strange story that later Osman I took Niliifer from his
son and made her his own third wife — incredible.
86 MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
to the defeat of her father on the field of Kosova, 1389, but her
marriage was equally the guarantee for the presence of Serbian
troops at the Battle of Ankara in 1402. 1 The marriage of 103/Mara
Brankovich to Murad II in 1435 was a continuation of this policy;
in fact her father’s ‘only safeguard was the Sultan’s belief that
tributary states were more profitable to Turkey than annexation’. 2
Similarly, the marriage of 1020/Nefise, daughter of Murad I, with
1580/Alaeddin Karamanoglu in 1378 marked a pause in the long
struggle between these two rivals for power in Anatolia.
But this Early Period did see many purely diplomatic marriages,
made for specific political reasons; examples may be cited among
the numerous marriages with Byzantine princesses 3 and with mem-
bers of the Dulkadirh and Candaroglu families. Professor Wittek
has suggested that after the Interregnum Mehmed I followed a
definite policy to set himself up as the leader of a new Turkish
‘Millet’ (Nation) and recreate the Ottoman Empire; therefore, for
his own and his sons’ wives he looked deliberately to the other
Turkish ruling families and turned away from the demoralizing
influence of marriages with Christian women. 4 At least it is certain
that never again was a Christian wife to have such power as had
been wielded by 8 x /Despina over Bayezid I. 5
Apart from the two wives of Osman I — 5 5 /Bala and 56/Mal —
1 Gibbons, 1 82 : ‘ Bayezid took Despina, daughter of Lazar, as wife by a formal marriage
act, which was read in the mosque of Alacahisar, near Kruchevatz, at the foot of
Mount Iastrebatz, twenty miles north-west of Nish. This was the last marriage ever
contracted by a sovereign of the House of Osman.* The latter statement is clearly
false; all the sultans down to Suleyman I contracted legal marriages, as did Osman II
and Ibrahim.
2 Cam. Med . Hist. iv. 469. 103 /Mara *s marriage is notable for several features. First,
the actual ceremony had to be postponed until she reached puberty. Then, when
Mehmed II came to the throne in 1451, he sent his stepmother back to Serbia, out of
generosity or indifference; there she quarrelled with her brother Lazar and had to seek
sanctuary again with Mehmed. Thirdly, Mehmed II did lay claim to the Kingdom of
Serbia by reason of this marriage — a most unusual procedure.
3 Orhan’s marriage to 63/Theodora Cantacuzenus was made by the Sultan to give
him influence with the Byzantine Empire and also to free his hand in the West, w’hilst
he took action against the Turkoman states in Anatolia. Compare the marriage of
537/Emir Musa to the daughter of 1630/Mirchea of Wallachia.
4 Wittek, in Belleten , 27. 582. Fisher, 13, makes a similar point: ‘Whereas Bayezid I
had conquered these areas and had come to live and act as the successor of Byzantine
and Balkan rulers, Mehmed I and Murad II married Turkish ladies and thoroughly
identified themselves with the Turkish people. Thus, through marriage and a more
tempered pressure, they regained control of Western Anatolia.*
5 Later wives, who reached influential positions, may have been born Christians, but
on entering the harem they were all converted to Islam.
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
87
there were not many cases of marriages with Ottoman women dur-
ing the Early Period. Nor were there as yet many examples of a
sultan's daughters being given to his leading officials, although
1685/Karaca (Jelebi Pa§a, 1701 /Mahmud £andarli Pa§a, and 1731/
Zaganos Mehmed Pa§a were thus honoured. As in later times, slaves
proper were taken into the harem during this period, but probably
on a small scale, and they are difficult to identify.
The Transition Period covers the three reigns of Mehmed II,
Bayezid II, and Selim I; during these seventy years there was a
steady change of emphasis in the marriage-policy pursued by the
sultans. Mehmed’s harem was full of Christian women and their
names are the record of his military conquests: 1 21 /Tamara
Phrantzes of Constantinople, 112/Anna Erizzo of Negroponte, 117/
Helen Paleologus of the Morea, 1 19/Maria Gattilusio, and 1 1 1 /Anna
Comnenus of Trabzond. But these were not official marriages, for
the sultans were beginning to feel too superior to have such formal
relations with conquered peoples. 1 Of conquered Muslim women
the chief representative was 142/Taclu, wife of 1915/Sah Ismail I,
who passed into Selim I’s harem for a short time after the Battle of
Qaldiran, 1514, but was later presented to Cafer Qelebi.
There were no diplomatic marriages with Christians during this
period, because the Ottoman Empire was now too powerful to
require such instruments of policy. The only possible case was the
romantic union of 570/Cem with 1772/Helene de Sassenage, during
his exile in France. 2 There were several marriage alliances with
Dulkadirlilar and Ak-Koyunlular during the Transition Period,
but these also were among the last of their kind. 3 The only other
1 Whilst these women were all taken into the harem on the conquest of their coun-
tries, it is doubtful whether any of them achieved any degree of intimacy with Meh-
med II. 112/Anna Erizzo is said to have been executed immediately for refusing his
advances — W. Miller, Latins , 477; 111/Anna Comnenus was soon after presented to
I 73 I /Zaganos Mehmed Pa$a and later to Evrenuz Pa§a.
2 This is a convenient point to note that, in spite of repeated stories to the contrary,
there is no satisfactory evidence of there ever having been any marriage between the
sultans and the French royal family. Deny, E.I., ‘Valide Sultanlar’, says they were all
Turkish inventions to explain the favour shown to the French by the grant of the title
Padi^ah’ to the French king, &c. Equally, there is no evidence to substantiate the
identification of Aimee Dubuc de Rivery (cousin of Josephine Beauhamais) with
Nak^idil Valide Sultan (mother of Mahmud II). Careful examination of Morton’s
Veiled Empress reveals no tangible support for the theory, but only a gross misuse of
sources. See Table XLV, Abdulhamid I, note 3.
3 The fact that both Dulkadirlilar and Safeviler were of the unorthodox Shii sect
seems to have raised no obstacles to marriages with Sunni Ottomans.
88
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
Muslim powers were the Mamelukes of Egypt 1 and the Safeviler
of Persia. With the latter one or two marriages did take place during
the reign of Bayezid II, but they had no power to ward off the blows
of Selim I, or to bring I9i5/§ah Ismail an accession of Turkish
territory. 2 Selim I also contracted a marriage with 140/Ay^e,
daughter of 1950/Menkili Giray, Tartar Han of the Crimea, who
was the widow of his brother 585/Mehmed. It is remarkable, when
one considers the position traditionally occupied by the Krim Hans
as possible heirs to the Ottoman Empire, 3 that this and the marriage
of Selim’s daughter, 1097/D., to 2065/Saadet Giray were the only
marriages between the two families.
It was during this Transition Period, however, that the policy of
marriages between the sultans’ daughters and their most influential
subjects began to develop on a broad scale. Bayezid II arranged a
whole series of such marriages for his daughters, a policy which he
had initiated while still only heir-presumptive; it paid excellent
dividends in the form of support received in his struggle against
570/Cem, and one of his most loyal subjects was his son-in-law,
1976/Grand Vizir Ahmed Hersekoglu. But even this type of mar-
riage was one-sided; the sultans generally refused to take any of
their own Turkish subjects into the harem and contented themselves
with slaves of obscure origin.
Throughout the Middle Period, marriages of the first three types
were non-existent, for there were no suitable dynasties with whom
marriage-alliances on a basis of equality could be arranged, while
the rulers of the subject states of the Ottoman Empire had already
been absorbed. The sultans continued to take only unknown slaves
into the harem, 4 while the princes were precluded from any form
of marriage by the restrictions of the ‘Kafes’. Thus marriages of the
1 Fisher, 93, says that Bayezid II sent a daughter, 1082/D., to Cairo in 1501 to cement
friendship with Egypt. The only other marriages traced are those of 1646/Hundi a
great-granddaughter of Bayezid I, and of 1779/D., a daughter of 570/Cem, but both
were devoid of political significance.
2 Of these marriages Fisher, 93, writes : ‘It was not the usual custom in Turkey to
give daughters of the Sultan in marriage to foreign princes, but Bayezid II disregarded
this usage and married two daughters outside the empire/ Surely the above paragraphs
and the genealogical tables show that such a statement is unjustifiable.
3 See p. 15.
4 There was one exception; in 1622 Osman II insisted on marrying 201/Ukayle,
daughter of 226o/§eyh-ul Islam Haci Mehmed Es’adullah Efendi. He claimed that his
intention was to purify the dynasty of debased slave blood, but the girl’s dowry
reputed to be six hundred thousand ducats — was another potent reason.
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
89
fourth type were the only outlet and from this time forward increas-
ing numbers of high officials married into the imperial family. Such
great vizirs as 2036/Makbul Ibrahim, 2126/Riistem, 2162/Mehmed
Sokollu, 2347/Merzifonlu Kara Mustafa, 2366/^orlulu Ali, and
24o6/Nev§ehirli Ibrahim were but a few of the important figures
who received the title ‘Damad’ (Son-in-law).
In the Late Period there were again no marriages of the first two
types, for the same reasons as before. There were, however, occa-
sional instances of members of the dynasty, both male and female,
marrying individual Christians of European and American origin ;
but these had no dynastic significance and in more than one case
the Head of the Family withheld recognition of the union. 1 With the
reappearance of independent Muslim dynasties in the Near East — -
Egypt in the nineteenth century and the Arab kingdoms after 1918—
a new series of marriages began with the ruling families of those
countries, but these, too, were practically devoid of political impor-
tance. The only exception w r as the marriage of i44o/Durrii§ehvar
Sultan, daughter of Caliph Abdiilmecid (II), to the Prince of Berar,
heir to the Nizam of Hyderabad. This took place in 1931, but it was
clearly only the consummation of a long-standing alliance between
the Caliph and the Nizam; the latter had been of great help to the
Caliph during his short reign.
In this connexion it is interesting to note that in 1866 Grand
Vizir Fuad Pa$a insisted, for reasons of state, that Abdtilaziz should
not marry Tevhide, daughter of Khedive Ismail of Egypt, with
whom he was infatuated. Such an alliance would have given the
proposed father-in-law too much influence at court, and have
raised difficulties had Tevhide wished to visit her own country.
Fuad Pa$a was dismissed, but his advice was respected. 2
Marriages with the vizirs also continued until the downfall of
the dynasty; one of the last grand vizirs, 2559/Ferid Pa§a, was
generally known as 'Damad’ Ferid. In this connexion it is inter-
esting to note the marriages of 2535/Enver Pa$a to 2532/Emine
Sultan 3 and of 2616/Ismail Hakki Bey to 2615/Behiye Sultan. The
1 Indicated in the Tables by ‘N. R.*; but these were mostly subsequent to 3 March
*924. 2 See Tiilbent^i, in R.T.M. ii. 1133.
3 Emine Sultan was already engaged to a cousin, but Enver insisted on his choice.
On going into exile in 1918, Enver confided his wife and family to his brother 2536/
Kamil, with the request that should Enver die, Kamil would marry his widow. When
Enver was assassinated in 1922, his brother loyally fulfilled the promise, in spite of the
temporary scandal it caused. Z. §akir, in R.T.M . i. 378.
90
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
philosopher Ziya Gokalp is said to have suggested that the imperial
family needed strengthening by the infusion of new blood, which
could best be provided by marrying some of the princesses to lead-
ing officers. His proposal pleased the leaders of the C.U.P. and
Grand Vizir Hilmi Pa$a advised Mehmed V to approve the
measure . 1
Having considered all the different types of marriages, certain
more general matters, chiefly concerned with the diplomatic mar-
riages, require further elaboration. It is of importance to discover
whether there was any long-term policy behind the series of mar-
riages with the different Turkoman dynasties of Anatolia . 2 Those
with the Karamanogullan were an attempt to appease or neutralize
a pow T er which the Ottoman Empire was not yet in a position to
destroy. With the Dulkadirlilar the aim was rather to check the
powder of Karaman and Kara-Koyunlu, by establishing a force
friendly to the Ottomans on their farther borders and thus be in a
position to threaten them with w r ar on both fronts . 3 Those with the
Candarogullari were equally strategic in intention : to safeguard the
northern flank of the Empire and its lines of communication as it
advanced south and east. At the same time these marriages were of
value to the ‘other partner’ states, for Dulkadir and Karaman were
being menaced by the Mamelukes, while Candar was eager to
postpone the evil day of its own destruction. But, taking the Early
and Transition periods as a whole, one can discern no general
attempt to foster marriage-alliances with the intention of using
them to extend the boundaries of the Empire. In fact, except for
lands included in a dow r ry, the marriages w 7 ere never made the
basis for a claim to territory or to justify subsequent conquests . 4 * * It
is also interesting that the later Chronicles, for all their interest in
1 Z. §akir, R.T.M, i. 378. Dr. Heyd says that he has never heard of such ideas; in any
case they are based on false premises as such marriages of daughters could in no way
affect the subsequent history of the dynasty.
2 Atiya, Crusade , 21: It was not until the fifteenth century that the process of
Turkish unification in Anatolia by means of marriages, intrigues and conquests was
complete.*
3 E.I. i. 960 says : ‘As Dukas tells us, Sultan Murad 1 1 wished this alliance — Mehmed
II with Sitt Hatun — in order to have an ally in the prince of Dulkadir against the
Karamanogullan and the Kara Yusuf.’
4 D’Ohsson, 7. 88, says that dowries in land were never taken, but if this was the
general rule there were exceptions, the most notable being the extensive lands round
Kutahya ^hich formed the dowry of 82, Devlet^ah Germiyanoglu on her marriage to
Bayezid I.
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
9i
genealogy, never suggested that the Ottoman sultans were heirs by
marriage of the Seljuk sultans of Rum. The explanation, in both
cases, probably lies in the inferior status of women in Islam, so that
the idea of any succession or inheritance through the female line
was entirely foreign to their minds . 1
The genealogical tables are also interesting for the marriages one
expects to, but does not, find. The paucity of marriages with the
Mamelukes, Safeviler, and Krim Hans has already been com-
mented upon. But equally there was only one with the rulers of
the Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, and none with the
early noble families of the Empire: Evrenuzogullari, Mihalogul-
lan, Malkofogullan, and Turhanogullan. In the Middle and Late
Periods also one can discern no system in the bestowal of a sul-
tan’s daughters on leading vizirs; the grand vizirs and the ‘Kapudan
Pa§alar’ (Admirals of the Fleet) were often honoured, but a great
many important vizirs never reached the eminence of ‘Damadk
Only one of the great Qandarh family married a princess ; Hiiseyin
Pa§a, conqueror of Crete, was passed over and likewise all but one
of the vizir-members of the Kopriilii family; Alemdar Mustafa
P a§a and the great reformers like Midhat Pa§a were equally neglected.
Also, with one exception , 2 there were no marriages with the Ulema,
though there is no indication whether this was a matter of religious
or political principle or just coincidence.
In discussing the question of inter-marriage and its effects on the
Ottoman dynasty, Professor Lybyer makes calculations regarding
the amount of Turkish blood which remained to flow in the veins
of the last Sultan.
If Orhan be set down as of pure Mongolian descent, and if it be supposed, as
is certainly near the truth, that all the mothers of succeeding sultans were not
of Turkish blood, and if the mother be assumed to contribute to the child an
influence equal to the father's, the proportion of Mongolian blood in the veins
of the reigning Sultan, who is of the twentieth generation from Orhan, can
readily be calculated, about one part in a million.
As the last four sultans and the last caliph were all of the nineteenth
1 See p. 14.
2 The one case is Osman II’s marriage to the daughter of 2260/Mehmed Es’adullah —
see p. 88, n. 4. Ibrahim also tried to marry the daughter of 2292/Muid Ahmed Efendi.
The only other connexion with the Ulema is the marriage of Abdiilhamid I’s grand-
daughter, 2477/Atiyetullah, to 2479/MoIIa Mahmud; their son, 2480/ Ahmed Muhtar
became Ԥeyh-iil Islam*.
92
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
— and not the twentieth — generation from Orhan, the figure should
be ‘one part in five hundred thousand 5 . 1 Whilst Lybyer’s general
thesis, that the mothers of the sultans were usually non-Turks, is
true, there were notable exceptions. Mehmed I’s mother was 82/
Devlet§ah Germiyanoglu, Murad IFs was 90/Emine Dulkadirli,
Bayezid IFs was 115/Giilbahar (probably of Ottoman blood),
Selim Fs was i3o/Ay§e Dulkadirli, and Suleyman Fs was 141/
Hafise (perhaps of Ottoman blood). These reduce the proportion to
one in sixteen thousand (1/16,384) and it is possible that the mothers
of some of the other sultans were also of Turkish blood, though this
is not so likely. 2
From this follows a further question, whether the mothers had
any direct influence on their sons, in such matters as the formation
of character. In the period prior to 1600, when princes were often
accompanied by their mothers when they were appointed to pro-
vincial governorates, it is quite possible that the latter did have a
formative influence which would embody something of their own
upbringing, either Christian or Muslim. This may have been the
reason why Bayezid I, son of a Greek woman yo/Giil^ek, w 7 as so
ready to absorb the influence of his Serbian wufe 81 /Despina. But
the matter is one for speculation rather than historical record. 3
Obviously, during the ‘Kadmlar Saltanati 5 the ‘Valide Sultanlar 5
must have wielded immeasurable pow r er over their sons, but one
gets the impression that it was rather by direct interference than by
the moulding of character. From the eighteenth century onwards
their influence slowly declined as they were elbow ed out of politics ;
then, perhaps, they went back to the more subtle w r ay. At all times,
1 Lybyer, 17. Actually 1/2 to the power 20 is 1/1,048,576 and not 1/1,148,576 as
Lybyer gives; so the correct figure for the power 19 is 1/524,288. Dam$mend, O.T.K. ii.
104, says the same thing: ‘Especially from the time of Kanuni Suleyman I the Ottoman
dynasty began to show a very strange fusion of sultans on the father’s side with slaves
on the mother’s side. A special feature of this fusion was that for centuries the Turkish
blood coming from the husband was mixed only with the foreign blood of the wives.’
2 See Table XII, p. 83. The origin of Bayezid ITs mother is discussed in Babinger,
Sift, 217. Possibly as a survival of exogamy, traditional among nomadic Turks, the
sultans of the Middle and Late Periods usually chose their wives from women of the
Circassian race.
3 Pears, Cam. Med. Hist. iv. 673, says: ‘Murad I was the son of a Christian woman,
Niliifer. ... It is a question which has been discussed, whether the influence of his
mother had any effect in moulding the character of her distinguished son. Murad seems
to have possessed traits quite unlike those of his father and grandfather; a singular
independence, a keen intelligence, a curious love of pleasure and luxury', and at the same
time a tendency' towards cruelty which was without parallel in his ancestors.*
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
93
however, the sultans seem to have bowed to their mothers’ decisions
in matters relating to the harem.
From the study of the people with whom the sultans and their
children married, we pass on to consider the marriages themselves.
Islamic Law allowed a man four wives, on condition that he main-
tained them all adequately, and an unspecified number of concu-
bines. 1 The earlier sultans usually had several of the latter attached
to their harem, but ranking above them were two or three wives of
full legal status. Concerning the weddings in those days there are
no records, but they presumably consisted of the simple religious
ceremony normal in Islam, 2 followed by a great public feast for the
leading members of the tribe. As the sultans became more powerful
and their brides were more frequently daughters of important
princes — both Muslim and Christian — whom it was politic to please,
so also the weddings became more elaborate. 3 They ceased to be
merely an occasion for public rejoicing and took on all the panoply
and splendour of court ceremonial, with receptions, offerings of
gifts and congratulations. Such was the marriage of Orhan with
63 /Theodora Cantacuzenus. The fact that a new wife was a Chris-
tian did not affect the wedding ceremonies at all, although usually
she was allowed to keep and practise her religion in private. 4
In 1389 Bayezid I married 81/Despina, a princess of Serbia. 5
After her husband’s defeat at Ankara she, too, was taken prisoner;
it is said that Timur grossly insulted Despina by making her per-
form menial tasks and act as cup-bearer at table — all this in front of
1 Brockelmann, 44. The essential proof of a legal marriage was the granting of a
dowry; Suleyman I gave 151/Hurrem ‘the position of a legal wife and bestowed a
dowry upon her, an act which is the surest pledge of a legal marriage among the Turks.
. . . The dowry is the only thing which distinguishes a lawful wife from a concubine ;
for no slave has a dowry.’ Busbecq, 28, 1 18.
2 Of a wedding in later times, Withers, in Purchas, 1588, writes: ‘. . . celebrating the
nuptial rites; which is nothing else but in the presence of the Mufti to give each of them
their assent to matrimony of which the Mufti maketh “Hoget” [“Hiiccet”], that is an
authentical writing or testification, not only of the consent of the two parties contracted,
but also of the dowry which the King is to allow her (his daughter, being given in
marriage).’
3 See Babinger, Sitt, 224. Compare, ‘This week took place in the city an event with-
out precedent in the annals of previous Sultans. The Grand Signior [sic] took to him-
self as Empress a slave woman from Russia called Roxelana and great feasting followed’
records of Genoese Bank of St. George, quoted by G. Young in Constantinople.
4 Such practice of Christianity ‘behind the lines’ of Islam must have been compara-
tively easy; on the position of religion in the marcher lands, see Wittek, R.O.E. 28, and
Brockelmann, 258.
5 See p. 86, n. 1.
94
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
the whole court and more particularly of her captive husband. 1
This story was seized upon by later writers 2 as a convenient explana-
tion of why the succeeding sultans refused to contract legal mar-
riages: for fear that their wives might be subjected to similar
humiliations, a fate which would not be so shameful if it fell only
on a concubine. Pleasantly chivalrous as such reasoning may be, it
cannot be taken seriously.
To begin with, the explanation is more humiliating than the facts
it argues by; it suggests that the Ottoman Empire was likely to
suffer again and repeatedly, as it had just done at the hands of
Timur. Put thus baldly, the argument would be an insufferable
blow to Turkish pride; and, in fact, the Empire was at this time
entering upon two hundred years of unchallenged supremacy. More
to the point, however, there certainly were marriages subsequent
to 1402. It is difficult to imagine that the respective families of
90/Emine Dulkadirli (who married Mehmed I), 100/Hadice Can-
daroglu (Murad II), 120/Sitt Dulkadirli (Mehmed II), and 130/
Ay$e Dulkadirli (Bayezid II) — or, for that matter, of 103/Mara
Brankovich (Murad II) — would have allowed them to enter the
harem of an Ottoman sultan as mere concubines whose status would
be entirely dependent on their masters’ will and whim. In support
of this contention one has only to consider the elaborate embassies
which were sent out to fetch both 103 /Mara and 120/Sitt — as previ-
ously for 82/Devlet^ah— and the magnificent reception which the
latter, at least, received on her arrival at court. 3 In this respect, one
other case may be cited: that of i4o/Ay§e Giray who married
Selim I. Her previous marriage to his deceased brother 585/
Mehmed, added to her lineage, marked her as a free Muslim woman,
who could not be taken into the harem as a slave ; here also there
must have been a legal marriage.
The actual change in policy in this matter of legal marriages
seems to have come about during the reign of Selim I, though no
1 Arabshah, 1 88 : ‘As soon as the cloud of veils were scattered from the sun of the
cup-bearers . . . Ibn Othman [Bayezid I] saw that the cup-bearers were his consorts
and that all of them were his wives and concubines ; then the world seemed black to
him.’
2 Busbecq, 28, says: ‘Those who followed Bayezid on the throne abstained from
marrying wives so that whatever fate befell them, they might not suffer a similar mis-
fortune, and only begat children by women occupying the position of slaves, upon
whom, as it was thought, disgrace would fall less heavily than upon legal wives.’
3 von Hammer, iii. 255; Dani^mend, i. 64, 191; Babinger, Sitt, 224.
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
95
specific rules were made; it probably arose from two factors already
touched upon. Firstly, by 1520 there were no independent Christian
or Muslim dynasties surviving with which marriage alliances on a
basis of equality could be contracted. 1 Secondly, as a corollary of
this, the Ottoman sultans had by that time come to consider them-
selves too powerful to recognize any status of equality in the women
of another dynasty. The sultans became more and more aloof, while
marriage alliances, ceasing to be necessary to Ottoman diplomacy,
became abhorrent as likely sources of intrigue, whether among
foreign states or powerful subjects. 2 A third explanation lies in the
sudden expansion of the Slave Household and particularly of the
harem, consequent on the capture of Constantinople, 3 when legal
marriages would have laid too great a financial strain on the Empire. 4
After 1520 only three legal marriages took place. The earliest was
that of Suleyman I to 151/Hurrem Sultan. She had entered the
harem as a slave-girl, probably when he was a provincial governor
in Kefe, had found favour with her master and borne him a child —
presumably 6o4/§ehzade Mehmed. 5 Her new position as a mother
gave Hurrem her freedom and Busbecq tells that she then with-
held herself from Suleyman until he would agree to legalize their
1 Gibbons, 183, n. 2, rather begs the question by saying: ‘At a time when family
alliances meant so much in Europe, the Ottoman Empire suffered greatly from this
disability.’ One can hardly imagine an Austrian Archduchess entering the harem of a
seventeenth-century sultan, or the latter’s daughter becoming wife of the czar of all the
Russias. There is, however, a rather fanciful story of Murad V and Abdulhamid II
getting entangled with an English princess during their visit to London in 1867.
Sehsuvaroglu, Aziz , 40, and in R.T.M. i. 21 1.
2 However, as Deny, in E.L> ‘Valide Sultanlar’, points out, possible pressure from
a wife’s family was occasionally replaced by that of the ‘patron’ and his political asso-
ciates. By ‘patron’ he presumably means the man who had presented a particular slave
to the sultan. Any such influence must have been very tenuous once the girl passed into
the harem. 3 Lybyer, 45 ff.
4 Rycaut, 155, deals with both these ideas and points out that the ‘Ba§makhk’ (Pin-
money) for a wife should have been equal to that of the Valide Sultan, ‘which is four or
five hundred thousand dollars [sic] yearly rent; so that were this custom in use, and
meeting with the disposition of some Princes that are Amorous and Prodigal, the chief
Revenue of the Empire would be expended in the Chambers of the Women. . . . Besides
were it the custom for the Sultans to take wives it would contract that main principle
of Policy amongst them, of avoiding Alliances and foreign Relations of the Grand
Signior abroad. And this was the principal reason of the murder of Sultan Osman, it
being objected that he had marryed a Sol tana [sic] whereby he had contracted Alliances,
contrary to the Fundamental Constitution of the Empire.’ Rycaut does not make it clear
that Osman’s wife was one of his own subjects, but this does not invalidate his argu-
ment. The financial side is also mentioned by Withers, in Purchas, 1588: ‘Sometimes
the Queen was wont to be wedded to the King, but now she passeth without the
Kebin”, that is w ithout an assignment of any jointure.’
5 See Table XXX, Suleyman I.
96 MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
marriage. 1 Then, as already seen, Osman II insisted on marrying
the daughter of the ^eyh-iil Islam’ in 1622, and in 1647 Ibrahim,
infatuated with his slave-woman 228/Telli, went through a form of
marriage with her after which she took the name Hiima^ah. Both
marriages were considered contrary to the best interests and the
customs of the Empire, and were among the causes for the subse-
quent depositions of the two sultans concerned. In later times, when
it was occasionally discovered that presumed slave- women were in
reality free-born Turks, the sultans did marry them quietly, but
this was a matter of conscience not politics. 2
That there were normally no marriages is clear from the system
of promotion in the harem. The sultan had relations with his slave-
women at pleasure, but as soon as one gave birth to a child, she
advanced to the rank of ‘Haseki’ ; the chief of these, the mother of
the first male child, was second only to the ‘Valide Sultan’ within
the harem. 3
From the sultans’ marriages we turn to those of his children.
Prior to 1600 those sons who were sent out to provincial gover-
norates and had reached puberty, set up their own miniature harem
of slave-girls under the eagle eye of their mothers, who usually
accompanied them. If they were to be partners in some more
brilliant marriage alliance, then the sons were recalled to the capital
for the occasion : this happened to Mehmed II in 1449, when he was
brought from Manisa to Edirne for his marriage to 120/Sitt Hatun.
After 1600 the rule of the ‘Kafes’ shut the princes off from all normal
relations with women and this continued until after 1870, when
greater freedom was granted them to maintain private establishments.
With the daughters of the sultans it was a different story. In the
early days quite a number of these became instruments of foreign
1 Busbecq, 118, says that concubines ‘obtain their freedom if they bear children.
Advantage was taken of this privilege by Roxolana [Hurrem], Suleyman’s wife, when she
had borne him a son while she was still a slave. Having thus obtained her freedom and
become her own mistress, she refused to have anything more to do with Suleyman,
who was deeply in love with her, unless he made her his lawful wife, thus violating the
custom of the Ottoman sultans.’ This is supported by the Genoese Bank records — see
p. 93, n. 3 — but the date given, 1546, is very late.
2 D’Ohsson, vii. 64, writes: ‘S’il n’en a pas la preuve et qu’il veuille neanmoins vivre
avec elle, il doit pour le repos de sa conscience I’affranchir et l’£pouser. Le Sultan
spouse alors sans le moindre appareil son esclave affranchie, en presence du Mufti.’
Deny, E.I., ‘Valide Sultanlar’, instances Mustafa III and Abdiilhamid I as doing this,
but does not say with which wives. After the Restoration of the Constitution in 1908,
Abdiilhamid II freed many of his slave-women.
3 See p. 80.
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
97
policy 1 and set off with their dowries for harem life in one or other
of the Turkish states in Anatolia. But these were a minority com-
pared with the number of princesses who were married to Ottoman
vizirs, from 1701/^andarh Mahmud Pa§a in 1424 to 2559/Ferid
Pa§a in 1886 and 2535/Enver Pa$a in 1912. In general the daughters
were not significant figures in the Ottoman body-politic ; the most
famous was 1100/Mihrimah Sultan, wife of 2126/Rustem Pa§a,
who, with her husband and mother, played an important part
in the reign of Suleyman L 2162/Mehmed Sokollu’s wife 1110/
Esmahan Gevher Sultan was also influential. Further, one can see
the value to a sultan of his daughters as an aid in winning over the
support of his most powerful subjects; this was particularly true in
the case of Bayezid II who was allied by marriage to most of the
great vizirs. Another example of this is the way in which 191/
Kosem Mahpeyker Valide Sultan maintained her position partly by
marrying her daughters to different vizirs. 2
The position of the husbands of these princesses was an equi-
vocal one, often unenviable and almost unavoidable, though there is
the record of at least one vizir who refused the honour. 3 The title
‘DamacT (Son-in-law) was within the reach of the humblest of the
sultan’s subjects but, whilst it might bring him power and influ-
ence, 4 it certainly did not in the least particle bridge the gap between
subject and sovereign. 5 The conditions under which a pasha married
1 On several occasions in the Early Period, the princesses did act as definite ambas-
sadors; 1020/Nefise Sultan (daughter of Murad I) repeatedly acted as mediator between
Ottoman and Karaman forces, while 1042/Selguk (A) Sultan (daughter of Mehmed I)
tried to smooth over the difficulties between Bayezid II and Cem. In 1499 a sister of
Bayezid II was a member of an embassy to the new Mameluke Sultan, Kansu.
2 Her three daughters, ii52/Ay§e, 1153/Fatma, and 1 154/Gevherhan, were all
married in infancy and, when a husband died or w r as executed, a new marriage was soon
arranged : Ayse probably had six husbands, Fatma six, and Gevherhan three.
3 2 338/Sarik9i Mustafa Pa$a refused to marry a daughter of Ibrahim, but in 1675
was persuaded to marry 1202/Hadice, daughter of Mehmed IV.
4 Mordtmann, in E.I., ‘Damad’, writes: 'Till the time of Suleyman I, the “Damad”
were usually sent into the provinces as governors to prevent their having any personal
influence on the affairs of the Sublime Porte.’ Should it not read ‘After the time . . .\
for there were comparatively few' such marriages before the time of Suleyman I, and
they were all with men about the court ?
5 Knolles, Introduction: ‘Where the prize is for vertue and valour set up, and the
way laied open for every common person, be he never so meanly born, to aspire . . .
even unto the nearest affinity of the Great Sultan himself, if his valour and other worth
shall so deserve.’ But Withers, in Purchas, tells us: ‘The pashas and other subjects,
though by marriage they become uncles, sons-in-law r or cousins to the Grand Sultan,
may not by virtue of their affinity challenge any more familiarity or freedom w'ith his
Majesty than if there were no such matter of kindred between them . . . they remaining
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
98
into the sultan’s family were arduous. First he had to put away all
the women already in his harem, even though they were mothers of
his children; 1 then he had to bring many costly presents (‘Agirlik’)
and pay a heavy dowry (‘Kebin’) ; he was subjected to many humilia-
tions, symbolized by the dagger (‘Haler’) which his wife always
wore ; finally he could be put away by his wife, in favour of another,
if she so wished. In return, the princess usually brought with her
some dowry from the sultan, together with her own personal pos-
sessions and up to twenty of her slaves; a furnished palace was often
provided for the couple and the wife received a stipend out of the
‘civil list’, of from 1,000 to 1,500 ‘akfa’ a day. Sometimes even a
measure of affection was shown by the wife, as when im/Fatma
Sultan pleaded for the life of 2i75/Siyavu$ Pa§a from her brother
Murad III. Mehmed IV’s daughter 1202/Hadice Sultan insisted on
joining 2339/Morah Hasan Pa§a in his province, just as 1176/Kaya
Sultan joined 2243/Melek Ahmed Pa§a, although this was contrary
to custom. 2
The ceremonies connected with the marriages of the sultans’
daughters were usually magnificent and consequently a great drain
on the resources of the Treasury. 3 Doctor Covel gives a very fine
description of one such wedding in 1675, that of 2338/Sank9i
Mustafa Pa§a to 1202/Hadice Sultan. 4
still slaves as the others do.’ One exception was 2036/Makbul Ibrahim who, in his
letters to his wife iogi/Hadice, speaks familiarly of the sultan as ‘Karde^im’ (My
Brother), and of the latter’s wives as ‘Abla’ (Elder Sister) and ‘Yenge’ (Sister-in-law) —
see Ulugay, Ask Mektuplan , 52. In any case there were compensations: ‘All these
bargaynes (appointments of Vizirs, etc.) are made by the Sultanas [«V] that are married
to pashas.’ Sherley, Discours, 4.
1 Again an exception, 2036/Makbul Ibrahim seems to have been able to maintain
a second wife, Muhsine Hatun, alongside his princess, 1091/Hadice Sultan. Ulugay,
ibid. 61. Further, when 2497/ Ahmed Fethi Pa§a married 1331/Atiye (daughter of
Mahmud II) she only discovered his previous marriage to 2498/§emsinur Hamm after-
wards and was very jealous indeed. If he did not come home at night, she would send
men to fetch him. Oz, in T.T.A.E. v. 5, n. 1.
2 In the Early and Transition periods princesses had always accompanied their
husbands to the provinces they governed and — like a sultan’s sons — could not move
without the sultan’s express permission; see the case of 1071/Fatma, given by Ulugay,
in Y.T.D. i. 338 and ii. 456. All this was changed, probably about the time the ‘Kafes*
was introduced.
3 When Abdiilmecid’s daughter 1355/Fatma was married to 2554/Ali Galib Pa$a in
1854, the Sultan spent more than forty million francs on the trousseau and wedding.
Jonquiere, 1. 468.
4 Covel, 227 ff. It covers: the bridegroom’s present, the appointment of proxies,
the drawing-up of the marriage-contract, and the settling of the dowry by the husband
(equal to the annual revenue from Egypt— £33,750 sterling at that period). Then comes
the procession of the dowry given by the sultan, the transfer of the bride from the Saray
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE 99
A complication was brought into these marriages by Ibrahim,
when he began the practice of marrying off the princesses while still
very young. As a result of the recently introduced ‘Kafes’ system,
there were neither sons ready for circumcision feasts, nor marriage-
able daughters whose weddings would add splendour to the life of
the court — and so distract popular attention from failures in govern-
mental affairs. Moreover, and this was a very dangerous precedent,
Ibrahim was looking round for political support among his chief
subjects. A third reason was purely financial: once the engagement
(‘Ni§an’) had taken place the prospective husband (‘Namzet’) was
held responsible for the young princess’s education and the main-
tenance of her household at a standard in accord with her position.
These child marriages often came to a sudden end with the death of
the husband, when the widow was married again to some other
deserving vizir; in extreme cases a daughter might be married four
or five times. 1 As these child-marriages could not be consummated
until the bride reached puberty, it sometimes happened that after a
whole series of marriages the princess was still a virgin. It is notable
that, after the long break in royal births during the eighteenth cen-
tury, Mahmud II refused to be hurried into marrying his daughters
and patiently waited until they reached maturity before finding
them husbands.
The only really inexplicable marriage is that of Selim I’s daughter
1090 /Fatma to her second husband 2266/Ibrahim, for his descriptive
names of ‘Hadim’ and ‘Tava<?i’ indicate that he was a eunuch. 2
Of Divorce there is little to write, for although it is a matter easily
arranged under Islamic Law, it hardly affected the marriages of the
sultans and their children. If a sultan lost interest in one of his legal
wives, married to him to cement some political alliance, he could not
very well divorce her, but she retired from active court life; 120/
Sitt Hatun is said to have spent most of her married life thus. 3 The
to her new home, and sports in celebration. In this connexion it should be noted that
it is not always clear whether the date given for a marriage is that of the day when the
husband’s candidature (‘namzet’) first received official approval, or when the actual
marriage took place. There was often a long interval between them, during which death
sometimes intervened. Even when the marriage (‘tezvi?’) had taken place, the consum-
mation (‘zifaf gecesi’) might be some weeks later.
1 See p. 97, n. 2, and add 1 194/Gevherhan Sultan (daughter of Ibrahim).
2 For a more particular discussion of the marriage of eunuchs, see Penzer, 145.
3 Babinger, Sitt, 22S. Sometimes in the Early Period a sultan’s wife was conveniently
exiled by sending her to live with her son in his provincial govemorate — see p. iS, n. 3.
IOO
MARRIAGES AND DIVORCE
mothers of a sultan’s children, particularly of sons, could not be dis-
possessed either, but if out of favour they led a rather solitary life
in the harem. With the concubines it was much simpler: they could
be ignored, exiled to the Eski Saray, or married to some courtier.
The same remarks apply to the wives of the sons of the sultans, dur-
ing the period when they could maintain a harem. But neither for
the sultans nor their sons was divorce ever really necessary, for their
harem was sufficiently large to offer discreet asylum for the un-
wanted. For daughters of the sultans, the situation was even easier;
the princesses always retained a position of great superiority over
their husbands and could divorce them at will, 1 though it is not un-
likely that on some occasions an embarrassing husband was re-
moved by more violent means. On the other hand, a princess could
only be repudiated by her husband with the express permission of
the sultan.
Brockelmann 2 describes divorce in the Muslim world as a ‘neces-
sary compensation for the separation of the sexes, which almost
excludes marriages of affection’, and it was certainly so considered
during the years after 1876. The princes of that period, newly freed
from the restraints of the ‘Kafes’ system, but still prevented from
taking an active part in the life of the Empire, indulged freely in the
pleasures of the harem, while their fundamental instability showed
itself in a disproportionate series of divorces. Moreover, their
example was soon followed by the princesses, so that the last years
of the dynasty were marked by a collapse in social morality which
the people were not slow to notice; it was the people’s repudiation
of this ‘amorality’ which largely facilitated the task of the Nationalists
in overthrowing the dynasty. It was some of these marriages which
failed to receive the recognition of the head of the family.
1 Jonquiere, i. 177, says: ‘Un jour 2058/Lutfi Pa$a avait ordonnS qu’une mahome-
tane, surprise au milieu de ses debauches fut mutilee a coups de rasoir. La barbarie de
cet ordre revolta tous les esprits de sa femme i094/$ahhuban. La princesse indignee
lui fit les reproches les plus vifs et les plus amers . . . l’accabla d’injures, le traita
d’impudent, de barbare, de tyran. Transports de colSre, le ministre met la main sur
une masse d’armes et se precipite sur elle. Aux cris de la sultane, les filles esclaves et les
eunuques prSposSs a la garde volent a son secours. Suleyman blama hautement la
conduite de Lutfi Pa$a, ordonna sa separation de la sultane, le depouilla de sa dignite,
et l’envoya en exil a Dimetoka’, where he wrote history.
2 Brockelmann, 44.
XIII
BIRTHS AND CIRCUMCISIONS 1
The student of Ottoman history tends to gather the impression that
all the sultans had very large families; the hyper- virility of Murad
III, Ahmed III, and Abdiilmecid I — who each had more than forty
children — obscures the complete sterility of Mustafa I, Suleyman II,
Osman III, and Selim III. In reality the families of the sultans
averaged only fourteen children, a figure which is not inordinately
large, considering the number of wives available. Further, the two
sexes were almost equally represented among the children, with an
average of seven sons and seven daughters. These figures apply
equally to the whole dynasty and to the two periods, Early and Late,
taken separately. To continue the statistical study, in a total of over
five hundred births, there appear to have been less than a dozen
cases of twins. It is of course possible that there had been others in
earlier times but, considering the celebrations which marked the birth
of Ahmed IPs sons 710/lbrahim and 711/Selim in 1692, it is unlikely
that any previous case of twins would have passed unrecorded. 2
Reasons for the comparative smallness of the families are not
hard to find. In the Early Period, even though they contracted many
unions for diplomatic advantages, the sultans were generally faith-
ful to one or two wives; Osman I had his 55/Bala Hatun, Orhan his
62/Niliifer, Bayezid I his 82/Devlet^ah and 81 /Despina, and Suley-
man I his 151/Hurrem Sultan. Moreover, these early sultans were
largely fighting men, engaged on protracted military operations. It
was only in the short intervals between campaigns that warriors
liked Mehmed II, Selim I, and Suleyman I would partake of the
pleasures of the harem. In this respect the sultans seldom tried to
mix pleasure with business; unlike I9i5/§ah Ismail, the Turkish
1 Throughout this chapter particularly, it is necessary to remember that the informa-
tion set out in the genealogical tables is incomplete. In spite of every effort it is almost
certain that, firstly, some births, especially those of daughters, have not been included,
because they were never recorded. Secondly, some of those given anonymously as ‘S’
or D’ should be identified with previously named children — but which ones ? Thirdly,
many dates of births and deaths are missing, a fact which invalidates to some extent the
statistical calculations.
2 See Cantemir, 386. For a list of twins, see Table XIV, p. 106.
102
BIRTHS AND CIRCUMCISIONS
sultans were not accompanied by members of the harem while on
campaign. Nor did the latter normally travel with the sultans on
any of their journeys through the Empire . 1
With the gradual demoralization of the sultans, which began with
Selim II and was brought about by the change to a life of ease and
luxury, there came for a short time a rapid increase in the size of the
sultans’ families, the crowning achievement being the reported one
hundred-odd children of Murad III . 2 But very soon the devitalizing
effect of the ‘Kafes ’, 3 instituted at about this time, began to act as
a strong counter-balance, so that on the average families were no
bigger, while cases of complete sterility occurred and the rate of
infantile mortality increased steadily . 4
All children born in the harem, whether of legally married wives,
foreign princesses, or slave women, were legitimate and of equal
lineage in the eyes of Islam, on the one condition that they were
acknowledged by their fathers . 5 In this respect it is notable that the
development of the harem ruled out any legal significance or family
pride in the maternal line of descent . 6 But the birth of a child, and
more particularly of a son, greatly influenced the position of the
mother within the harem hierarchy, so that the early deaths of many
infant sons must have ruined numberless dreams of greatness . 7
In the Early Period children were often born to the sons of
1 This only applies after the seclusion of the harem was established in 1453. Even
then 151/Hurrem Sultan seems to have enjoyed certain privileges, and travelled to
Bursa. The only one who travelled widely was 245/Rabia Gulnu?, who followed her
husband, Avci Mehmed IV, on many of his hunting expeditions in Thrace.
2 The figure generally given, 104, is almost certainly an exaggeration; in the tables
it has been possible to account for only 56, and then in a most arbitrary manner.
3 See p. 34. Lamb, 268, strangely talks of ‘the disastrous inbreeding of the Harem’,
but there is no evidence at all for such a statement; the odd cases of marriages between
cousins did not affect the main line of the dynasty at all.
4 It may be that the ‘increase’ in infantile mortality is illusory and results only from
more detailed records being available in the Later Period; but extensive study of the
genealogical tables, together with a consideration of the conditions of life in the harem
of the Saray, compared with the less inhibited existence of women and children in the
Early Period, will suggest that the ‘increase’ was real. At any rate the smooth flow of
the Succession was most in danger after the ‘Kafes’ had been substituted for Fratricide.
The figures are as follows: from Ahmed I (1603) to Abdulmecid (II) (1924), 62 out of
147 sons and 46 out of 174 daughters died before reaching their tenth birthday, most
of them in early infancy. The difference in percentages, as betw een the sexes, 43-6 to
26*4, is normal and supports the figures. Comparable figures for the Earlier Period
cannot be given, since few dates of birth and death are known.
5 Brockelmann, 44. Wittlin, 1 ff., gives an over-dramatized account of how Abdul-
mecid I withheld recognition of Abdulhamid II for a whole week, because of suspicions
regarding the circumstances of his birth. 6 Busbecq, 29.
7 See p. 80. For the actual ceremonies see Uzungar^ili, S.T. 106.
BIRTHS AND CIRCUMCISIONS
103
sultans while they were still stationed in their provincial gover-
norates; Suleyman I was born at Trabzon and Ahmed I at Manisa. 1
As a result, these births received comparatively little attention in
the capital, largely because — under the early Law of Succession —
there was nothing to indicate which of a sultan's grandsons would
eventually inherit the throne. However, with the termination of the
system of governo rates and the introduction of the ‘Kafes', a sultan
had no sons— let alone grandsons — until after his accession and all
their births took place in the capital. It was thus easy to turn them
into occasions of popular rejoicing (‘Veladet-i hlimayun’), especially
if affairs of state happened to be going rather unfortunately at the
time. Ahmed III had so many offspring that, with the celebration
of the children's births, the sons' circumcisions, and the daughters'
marriages, there was a holiday atmosphere in the Saray throughout
his reign. 2
Many authorities state that in order to limit the number of males
who could lay claim to the throne, the daughters of the sultans were
not allowed to have sons when they married ; and if by any chance
boys were born, the umbilical cord was left untied. 3 But reference
to the genealogical tables makes it clear that, if this was the Law,
it was not closely observed. Taking the dynasty as a whole, 149
daughters contracted marriages and gave birth to 60 sons and 55
daughters. Even taking the ‘middle’ period from Selim II to
Abdiilaziz (1566-1876), when restrictions were most effective, 88
daughters married and gave birth to 21 sons and 28 daughters, all
of whom were apparently allowed to take the normal course of life.
If the restrictions did exist at all, then the figures suggest that
daughters were almost equally discouraged with sons. 4 There are
several explanations for these small families; in the first place,
1 See Table XIII, p. 105, for the dates and places of birth of the sultans.
z Kara!, I. A. iii. 168, says: * Colour and perfume increased the atmosphere of festivity
with which all the Tulip Age passed.’ Covel, 153, says: ‘The Turks at Bayram, and at
all victories and births of the princes, make great mirth. It happened the Sultana [sic]
was delivered of a second son [Ahmed III] this last Ramas, December 1673. The mirth
was put off till the Bayram, and then it was doubled ’The length of the ceremonies de-
pended on which son it was; see Uzun9ar$ih, S.T. 167-71, and Sirer, in R.T.M. iv. 2433.
D’Ohsson, vii, 93, says: ‘C’est a ces dispositions rigoureuses et cruelles que la
maison othomane doit sa stabilite.’
4 The sons concerned are: 2163-5, 2176, 2213, 2234, 2281, 2340-3, 2371, 2408-9,
2419, 2430, and 2443-4, together w ith three grandsons of Abdiilaziz. Of these at least
two, 2164 and 2281, had children in their turn, the former’s being the famous tbrahim-
hanzadeler, who were supposed to have a claim to the throne; see p. 15, and the
articles ‘Damad’ and ‘Ibrahim Han’ in I. A.
104
BIRTHS AND CIRCUMCISIONS
sterility presumably affected the female line as much as the male.
Secondly, many of the daughters were married before they reached
puberty, or their marriages were of short duration because of their
husbands’ sudden deaths. These, combined with the rule that after
six months of married life in Istanbul a vizir or pasha had to return
to his post, wherever that might be, leaving his wife in the capital, 1
all helped to reduce the birth-rate.
With Births, it is convenient to discuss the Feasts of Circum-
cision, which usually took place when the princes were between the
ages of eight and sixteen; once the ceremony had been performed,
they were given separate apartments in the ‘Selamlik’ (Men’s
Quarters). The word ‘sur’ means a wedding-feast and is used equally
in speaking of the weddings of girls (‘sur-u cihaz’) and of the cir-
cumcisions of boys (‘sur-u hatan’). 2 In Islam the wedding-feast was
in honour of the bride, as the husband had already celebrated his
feast at the time of his circumcision ; both were considered as com-
pensations for the suffering endured.
From the earliest times the Ottoman sultans celebrated the cir-
cumcisions of their sons and grandsons with great ceremonial and
distribution of largesse, which became ever more prodigal as time
passed. As early as 1457 Mehmed II held a four-day festival at
Edime for Bayezid II and 571 /Mustafa, after which they returned
to their governorates, but probably the most elaborate of all cir-
cumcision feasts was that given by Murad III for his son Meh-
med III in 1582, which lasted practically two months. 3 The actual
operation, the raison d'etre of the festivities, was usually though not
invariably performed during the first few days. Ahmed I, Murad IV,
and Mehmed IV were all circumcised after they came to the throne,
the operation taking place as soon as possible after the accession.
1 The only exceptions were those husbands attached to the central administration
but even then only during their tenure of office. A remarkable case was 1202/Hadice
Sultan, who insisted on accompanying her husband the ex-grand vizir, 23 39/Mo rail
Hasan Pa§a, into provincial exile in 1704.
2 See von Hammer, i. 271; and the various ‘Sumame-Ier\
3 There is a detailed day-by-day description in Fugger, 63 ff., and also in Dani§-
mend, iii. 58. Describing another circumcision, Fugger’s correspondent wrote: ‘The
results of the Circumcision were presented to the mother of the Crown Prince in a
golden dish, and the blood-stained knife to the mother of the reigning Sultan.’ Ibid.
261, n. A detailed account of the preparations for, and performance of, a much later
circumcision is given by Z. $akir, in R.T.M. i. 613 and 659; the victim was 864/Mehmed
Abid, youngest and favourite son of Abdulhamid II. The operation was performed
after much religious discussion — with the aid of anaesthetics.
BIRTHS AND CIRCUMCISIONS
105
TableXIII. Dates and Places of Birth of the Sultans
Sultan
Date
i/Osman I
1258
2/Orhan
1288
3/Murad I
1326
4/Bayezid I
1360
5/Mehmed I
1389
6/Murad II
1404
7/Mehmed II
30. 3- 1432
8/Bayezid II
i- 1448
9/Selim I
1470
10/Suleyman I
6. ii. 1494
n/Selim II
28. 5. 1524
12/Murad hi
4- 7* 1546
13/Mehmed III
26. 5. 1566
14/Ahmed I
18. 4. 1590
15/Mustafa I
1592
16/Osman II
3. 11. 1604
17/Murad IV
29. 8. 1609
18/ibrahim
4. 11. 1615
19/Mehmed IV
2. i. 1642
20/Suleyman II
15. 4. 1642
2 1 /Ahmed II
25. 2. 1643
22/Mustafa II
5. 6. 1664
23/Ahmed III
31. 12. 1673
24/ Mahmud I
2. 8. 1696
25 /Osman III
2. 1. 1699
26/Mustafa III
28. 1. 1717
27/Abdiilhamid I
20. 3. 1725
28/Selim III
24. 12. 1761
29/Mustafa IV
8. 9- 1779
30/Mahmud II
20. 7. 1785
31/Abdulmecid I
23. 4. 1823
32/Abdulaziz
9. 2. 1830
33/Murad V
21. 9. 1840
34/Abdulhamid II
22. 9. 1842
35/Mehmed V
3. 11. 1844
36/Mehmed VI
2. 2. 1861
37/Abdulmecid (II)
29. 5. 1868
Place
Sogut (?)
?
Bursa (?)
Edime (?)
Edime (?)
Amasya
Edirne
Dimetoka
Amasya
Trabzond
Istanbul
Manisa
Manisa
Manisa
Manisa
Istanbul
Istanbul (on Bosphorus)
Istanbul
Istanbul
Istanbul
Istanbul
Edime
Hacioglu Pazan
Istanbul
Istanbul
Istanbul
Istanbul
Istanbul
Istanbul
Istanbul
Istanbul
Istanbul
Istanbul
Istanbul
Istanbul
Istanbul
Istanbul
io6
BIRTHS AND CIRCUMCISIONS
TableXIV. Twins Born to the Dynasty
Parents
Tzvins
Date of birth
A. 21/Ahmed II
7 10/ Ibrahim
7. 10. 1692
250/Rabia
711/Selim
B. 22/Mustafa II
72 1 /Ahmed (B)
! 3- 3- 1703
264/Hafise
726/Murad (B)
C. 23/Ahmed III
1 262/ Omniugiilsum
1266/Zeyneb (A)
11. 2. 1708
D. 23/Ahmed III
73 1 /Abdiilmecid
732/Abdiilmelek
12. 12. 1709
E. 23/Ahmed III
747/Selim (B)
1259/Saliha
21. 3. 1715
F. 30/Mahmud II
810/Mahmud
812/Mehmed (B)
18. 2. 1822
G. 3 1 /Abdiilmecid I
1358/Hadice
8. 1. 1842
382/Gulcemal
1366/Refia
H. 31/Abdulmecid I
830/Mehmed Nizameddin
829/Mehmed Vamik
19. 4. 1850
I. 34/Abdulhamid II
862/Ahmed Nureddin
22. 6. 1901
421/Behice
865/Mehmed Bedreddin
J. 842/Mehmed Seyfeddin
2582/Ahmed Tevhid
2. 12. 1904
2581/Nervaliter
2584/Fatma Gevheri
It is curious that of the ten cases of twins, five should be the children of only
two sultans, though admittedly Ahmed III and Abdiilmecid I had two of the largest
families.
It seems possible that 627/Cihangir (A) and 639/Suleyman, both bom to Murad III
in 2. 1585, were twins.
Some say that Mustafa III was a twin of 742/Mehmed (D), but von Hammer and
Siirreya give separate dates.
XIV
DEATHS AND FUNERALS
The cause of death of each of the sultans, as far as is known, is
set out in Table XV . 1 Where death resulted from illness, it is often
difficult to make a clear diagnosis on the available evidence, parti-
cularly as there are sometimes conflicting reports. Some sultans,
however, died in a more dramatic way: Murad I was stabbed to
death by Milosh Kobilovich in the very hour of victory on the field
of Kosova. Two sultans committed suicide, although it was strictly
contrary to the tenets of Islam: Bayezid I, in despair over his defeat
and imprisonment at the hands of Timur, took poison; Abdlilaziz,
depressed by his deposition, cut his veins with a pair of scissors . 2
It is not clear whether Bayezid II also took his own life or merely
died of depression; perhaps, even, his death on the road to Dime-
toka was arranged by his son Selim I. Osman II, Ibrahim, Selim III,
and Mustafa IV were all executed subsequent to their depositions . 3
The only other remarkable death was that of Mahmud I, who
collapsed while on horseback returning from the ‘Cuma Selamligi’
(Friday Prayers); there is a completely unauthenticated tradition
that he did not actually die, and was accidentally buried alive.
It was, perhaps, in death that the sultans were best able to assert
their superiority over their subjects, by repeated contraventions of
the customs of Islam, which were tolerated by the Ulema. The
Prophet ordained that death and burial were to be occasions for
humility and simplicity, to be completed as soon as possible; but
the deaths of the sultans were often marked by prolonged display.
The reason for this became clear when considering the Succession;
to prevent disorder it was often essential to conceal the death of a
sultan until his successor could reach the capital . 4
1 See p. no.
2 For Bayezid I’s death see Kopriilu’s two articles, in Belleten , 2. 591 and 27. 591.
There has been much controversy over the manner of Abdulaziz’s death; Mordtmann
in E.I. ii. 342 and iii. 332 says suicide, but Siissheim, E.I. i. 36, says murder, as does
Giese, 256 — ‘er wurde abgesetzt und bald darauf ermordet'. AH the Turkish writers
in l.A and §ehsuvaroglu, Aziz, accept the theory of suicide; the latter sets out all
the contemporary documents and opinions. It is notable that Abdulaziz’s son Yusuf
Izzeddin also committed suicide in 1916 — see Baykal, in T.D. i. 487, &c.
3 See p. 64 ff. 4 See p. 37.
108 DEATHS AND FUNERALS
Such concealment could only be achieved by deliberate trickery,
which involved the immediate embalming of the sultan’s corpse
and the apparent maintenance of his normal daily routine. It can
best be seen in the account of the lengths to which 2162/Grand
Vizir Sokollu Mehmed Pa?a went to prevent the soldiers learning
of Suleyman I’s death. 1 Grand Vizir Mehmed Karamam Pa$a, on
the other hand, took too many precautions over Mehmed II’s
death, the suspicions of the Janissaries were aroused and the secret
discovered, with fatal results. 2 Murad III was the last sultan whose
death had to be concealed, for his son and successor Mehmed III
was the last prince to be sent out to a provincial governors te ; thence-
forward the heir to the throne was always at hand in the ‘Kafes’. 3
Delays in burial, embalming, and the transportation of corpses
over long distances were all alike forbidden to Muslims, exception
only being made in favour of the sultans. 4 It was probably these
general prohibitions which made the concealment of a particular
sultan’s death a comparatively easy task, as being something com-
pletely outside the experience of the ordinary Turk, and therefore
unsuspected. 5 Apart altogether from political necessity, embalming
must have been practised by the Ottoman dynasty to allow of the
transportation of corpses to the family mausoleums; prior to the
1 See Uzun9ar$ili, O.T. ii. 403 and Dani^mend, ii. 352.
2 See Onver, Nichemedy, 14.
3 Similar cases can be quoted from other countries. In 1249 the death of the Eyubite
sultan of Egypt, Malek Saleh, was concealed for three months whilst the struggle
against the Crusaders continued. The record is surely held by Tibet: ‘The sixth Dalai
Lama did not die until 1680. . . . When he did, the Chief Ministers wishing to keep the
power and to use the Dalai Lama’s authority to complete the massive pile of the Potala,
concealed his death for nine years, telling the people that he was in spiritual seclusion
and none must interrupt him/ Bell, 32 and 262.
4 Cantemir, 43, n.26: ‘Mahometan Law strictly forbids every person, besides the
Emperor, to keep a dead body in his house till the second day, or to remove them beyond
the space of three Italian miles. So, should the Prime Vizir die in a journey, he is to be
buried in the same place where he falls, or the next town if within distance. But the
corpse of the Emperor, should he die even upon the utmost bounds of India, is by his
successor to be embalmed and with the greatest speed conveyed to its sepulchre in the
Mosque built by himself or, for want of that, into some sepulchre of his ancestors.’ The
mo longest transportations were from Ak^ehir to Bursa (Bayezid I) and from Sigetvar
to Istanbul (Suleyman I). These privileges were extended to the sultan’s sons; in 1553
602/Cihangir’s body was brought from Halep.
5 ‘Mehmed I’s corpse was embalmed according to ancient Turkish custom.’ Dam§-
mend, i, 183. At the death of Selim II, the new' ‘Valide Sultan’ took control and
ordered his corpse to be put in ice. Ibid. ii. 421, Suleyman II died at Edirne and his
body also was packed in ice and sent to Istanbul for burial; the body w'as brought as
far as Silivri by road and then transferred to a special boat — as also was Ahmed II’s;
see Refik, Istanbul Hayati , 7 and 16.
DEATHS AND FUNERALS
109
capture of Constantinople the sultans and their families were all
buried in Bursa, but after 1453 the graves of all the sultans and most
of their relatives were dug in Istanbul. 1 Only Mehmed VI and
Abdiilmecid (II) died in exile and were buried there.
The actual funeral of a sultan was not usually the occasion for a
great display, except in the Early Period; ceremonial and proces-
sions there were, but any atmosphere of public mourning and the
wearing of black robes was usually overshadowed by the general
rejoicing — or at least display — connected with the new sultan's
accession. 2
1 570/Cem, however, was buried in Bursa in 1499.
2 For details see Uzun9ar?ih, S.T. 53-56. For Mehmed II’s funeral see Onver,
Nichemedy , 14-17; for Murad Ill’s see Rosedale, 26; and for Abdulhamid II’s see
Refik, in T.D. i. 94, and $akir, in R.T.M . ii. 754 and 804.
no
DEATHS AND FUNERALS
Table XV. Causes of the Sultans' Deaths
Sultan
Date and place of death
Cause of death
1 /Osman I
1324 — Sogut
Apoplexy/gout
2/Orhan
4. 1360—?
Depression/gout
3 /Murad I
6. 1389 — Kosova
Assassination
4/Bayezid I
10. 3. 1403 — Ak$ehir
Suicide (poison)
5/Mehmed I
26. 5. 1421 — Edime
Dysentery/poison (?)
6/Murad II
3. 2. 1451 — Edime
Apoplexy (drink)
7/Mehmed II
3. 5. 1481 — Maltepe
Gout/poison (?)
8/Bayezid II
26. 5. 1512 — Dimetoka
Depression/suicide/assassina-
tion (?)
9/ Selim I
22. 9. 1520 — Qorlu
Cancer
io/Siileyman I
7. 9. 1566 — Sigetvar
Apoplexy
n/Selim II
15. 12. 1574 — Istanbul
Concussion/alcohol
12/Murad III
16. 1. 1595 — Istanbul
Apoplexy/stone
13/Mehmed III
22. 12. 1603 — Istanbul
Depression/apoplexy
1 4/ Ahmed I
22. 11. 1617 — Istanbul
Typhus
15/Mustafa I
20. 1. 1639 — Istanbul
Mental, physical collapse
16/Osman II
20. 5. 1622 — Istanbul
Execution
17/Murad IV
9- 2. 1640 — Istanbul
Cirosis
1 8/ Ibrahim
18. 8. 1648 — Istanbul
Execution
19/Mehmed IV
6. 1. 1693 — Edime
i Gout/depression/poison (?)
20/Siileyman II
22. 6. 1691 — Edime
Dropsy
21/Ahmed II
6. 2. 1695 — Edime
1 Dropsy, depression/apo-
plexy
Dropsy
22/Mustafa II
29. 12. 1703 — Istanbul
23/Ahmed III
1. 7. 1736 — Istanbul
General/poison (?)
24/Mahmud I
14. 12. 1754 — Istanbul
Apoplexy
25 /Osman III
30. 10. 1757 — Istanbul
Apoplexy
26/Mustafa III
21. x. 1774 — Istanbul
Heart failure
27/Abdulhamid I
7. 4. 1789 — Istanbul
Apoplexy
28/Selim III
28. 7. 1808 — Istanbul
Execution
29/Mustafa IV
16. 11. 1808 — Istanbul
Execution
30/Mahmud II
x. 7. 1839 — Istanbul
Cirosis/anxiety /tuberculosis
31/AbduImecid I
25. 6. 1861 — Istanbul
Tuberculosis
32/Abdulaziz
4. 6. 1876 — Istanbul
Suicide (cutting veins)
33/Murad V
29. 8. 1904 — Istanbul
Diabetes
34/Abdulhamid II
10. 2. 1918 — Istanbul
Heart failure
3 5/Mehmed V
2 .7. 1918 — Istanbul
Heart failure
36/Mehmed VI
15. 5. 1926 — San Remo
Heart failure
37/Abdiilmecid (II)
8. 1944 — Paris
Heart failure
Note. Sultans 1-6 were buried at Bursa, 7-35 in Istanbul, 36 at Damascus, and 37 in
Medina. '
XV
TITLES USED BY THE OTTOMAN
DYNASTY
The titles assumed by, or given to, members of the House of Osman
may be separated into four classes, indicating respectively: personal
characteristics, personal achievements, personal rank, or the extent
of the Empire.
The first were in the nature of personal ‘Lakap’ (Nickname),
pointing to the interests, habits, or character of the sultan or his
family. They ranged from the ‘Veli’ or ‘Sofu’ of Bayezid II to the
‘Mest’ or ‘Sarho$’ of Selim II, from the ‘Deli’ of Mustafa I and
Ibrahim to the ‘Avci’ of Mehmed IV, from the ‘AdlF of Mahmud II
to the ‘Kanli’ of Abdiilhamid II. Closely connected with these titles,
but looking rather to individual achievements, were others such as
‘Gazi’, accorded to a sultan who led his troops victoriously into the
‘Dar-ul Harb'; or Murad I's ‘$ehid’, in memory of his martyr's
death at Kosova; the ‘Fatih' which recorded Mehmed II's capture
of Constantinople, or the ‘Kanuni’ given to Suleyman I in recogni-
tion of his work as a law-giver. It is these two classes of titles which
are shown in the genealogical tables, appended to this book.
Those titles indicating personal rank were much more widely
distributed and lacked the individuality of the two preceding groups.
There were the ‘£elebi’, ‘§ehzade’, and ‘Efendi' which, at different
periods, distinguished a sultan’s sons ; and the carefully graded titles
which marked the progress of a favoured lady through the harem
from ‘Ikbal' to ‘Valide Sultan'. Then came the series of administra-
tive titles: ‘Sancak-bey’, ‘Beylerbey’, ‘Pa$a’, ‘Vizir', and ‘Vizir-i
Azam’; only certain of these could be accorded to males of the
House of Osman but all were within the reach of the ‘Damad’ who
married into the family . 1
These in turn lead on to the titles which marked the steady rise
1 In the tables only the highest rank attained by an individual is given, although it
may be presumed that in the vast majority of cases such a person had passed through all
the lower ranks of the hierarchy; see B. Miller, Palace School, 160 ff., and Gibb and
Bowen, i. 77-137 and 329-63.
1 1 2
TITLES USED BY THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY
in dignity of the Head of the Ottoman Tribe: from ‘Han’ and
‘Emir’ through ‘Sultan’ to ‘Padi§ah’; x and those which indicated
the assumption of spiritual authority: ‘Halife’, ‘Hadim-iil Hare-
meyn’, and ‘Emir-til Muminin .’ 2 Combined with the above was the
long list of territories which owned the sultan’s sway. The whole
can best be seen in the official correspondence, where each separate
claim to distinction is set forth, like a jewel to dazzle the eye of the
beholder . 3 They can also be seen in the ‘Tugra’ which decorated so
many official documents ; 4 so the prestige of the sultans was blazoned
to the four corners of the earth . 5
Table XVI. Titles used by the Ottomans {and Glossary)
Adli. ‘The Just.’ Given to Bayezid II, Mehmed III, and Mahmud II.
Aga. ‘Commander.’ Given to senior officers of the Army and the Household,
such as ‘Yen^eri Agasi’ and ‘Kizlar Agasi’.
Ahretlik . ‘Adopted.’ Given to 1302/Diirrusehvar.
Ak-bash. . ‘White-headed.’ Given to 46/Aktimur.
Alp . ‘Companion in Arms.’ Frequently used in the Early Period, when the
close tribal organization still existed. 6
1 ‘Orhan had from his accession been conscious that he had succeeded to the rule
of a greatly increased number of subjects and of a larger extent of territory than his
father, and judged that he was entitled to abandon the title of “Emir” and to assume the
more ambitious one of “Sultan of the Ottomans”/ Cam. Med. Hist. iv. 633 ; see Saltan ,
below.
2 ‘It is well-known that the Ottoman rulers, as they developed, took the titles of
“han”, “emir”, “sultan” and — after the conquest of Byzantium — “lord of the lands
and seas”; when Syria, Egypt and Arabia were added they took those of “protector of
the Holy Cities” and “Caliph”. Of these titles “caliph” appears on “fermanlar” and
in the Friday sermons, while we can read the others on coins/ Artuk, 6.
3 The prelude of a letter from Suleyman I to Francis I in 1525, reads : ‘I who am the
Sultan of Sultans, the Sovereign of Sovereigns, the distributor of crowns to the monarchs
of the surface of the globe, the shadow' of God upon Earth, the Sultan and Padishah of
the White Sea [Mediterranean], the Black Sea, Rumelia, Anatolia, Karamania, Rum,
Dulkadir, Diyarbekir, Kurdistan, Azarbaycan, Persia, Damascus, Aleppo, Cairo,
Mekka, Medina, Jerusalem, all Arabia, Yemen and the other countries which my noble
ancestors — may God brighten their tombs — conquered and which my august majesty
has likewise conquered with my flaming sword, Sultan Suleyman Han, son of Sultan
Selim, son of Sultan Bayezid; you who are Francis, King of France, you have sent a
letter to my Porte, the refuge of sovereigns. . . / Other examples may be found in von
Hammer, ii. 524, Dani$mend, i. 169, and Vakif Dergisi, ii. 439.
4 For interpretations of the various ‘Tugra’, see Orgun, in T.T.A.E. v. 263 ff., and
Wittek, in Byzantion , xviii. 311 ff.
5 In 1489 Yusuf Adil^ah founded a dynasty in Bijapur, India, and to heighten his
dignity claimed that he was a son of Sultan Murad II, who had been obliged to flee
with his mother and had subsequently been sold into slavery and taken into the army of
the Bahmanides. E.I. i. 139. The idea and not the veracity of the claim is the significant
point. Under Suleyman I, the ‘Kapudan Pa?a’ Sidi Ali Pa§a visited India and found
that the name of the ‘Padi^ah’ had considerable influence at the Mogul capital.
6 See Tankut, in Belleten , i. 26.
TITLES USED BY THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY 113
Amca. ‘Uncle’, on the father’s side.
Amcazade . ‘Uncle’s son’, and so ‘Cousin’.
Arslan. ‘The Lion’ or ‘Lion-hearted’. See 2009/Mehmed.
Avci. ‘The Hunter.’ Given to Mehmed IV, whose chief interest in life was
hunting, which he indulged around Edirne.
Bahir . ‘Naval.’ See 2472/Mustafa.
Bahti. ‘The Fortunate.’ Given to Ahmed I, and used by him as a nom-de-
plume for his poetry.
Bas. ‘Head 5 , ‘Chief’. Generally used in conjunction with some other title, as
‘Bas-Quhadar’ or ‘Kapici-basi’.
Bedros. ‘Peter.’ This is a common Armenian name and was given to Abdiil-
hamid II in reference to his supposedly Armenian features. Wittlin, 1,
gives a story that his father was not Abdlilmecid I, but an Armenian who
managed to have a liaison with his mother. The simpler explanation is
that his mother, 397/Tirimujgan, was probably an Armenian.
Bey. ‘Lord’, ‘Prince’. In the course of time it lost its significance and became
a courtesy title, rather like the English ‘esquire’.
Beycegiz. ‘Little Lord.’ Given to 2288/Mustafa.
Beylerbeyi. ‘Lord of Lords.’ Given to the ruler of a great province. 1
Beyzade. ‘Son of a Lord.’ Given to the sons of a sultan’s daughters ; it replaced
the earlier title ‘Sultanzade’ q.v.
Biyikh . ‘Whiskered.’ Given to 2278/Mehmed.
Bosnak. ‘Bosnian.’ See 2052/Mustafa.
Biiyiik . ‘Big.’
Cedd-ul Osman . ‘Father of the Ottomans.’ Given to 40/Siileyman Sah.
Cemca. ‘Powerful as Cemsid.’ One of the honorific titles of the sultan. 2
Cerrah. ‘Surgeon.’ See 2187/Mehmed and 2327/Kasim.
Cihandar. ‘Lord of the World.’ Given to Selim III.
Civan. ‘Young.’ Given to 2138/Mehmed.
Qaktrci. ‘Falconer.’ See 2185/Hasan.
Qavus. ‘Petty-officer’, ‘Messenger’. See 2320/Mehmed.
Qelebi. ‘Gentleman’, ‘Gracious Lord’, ‘Young Master’. Up to the time of
Mehmed II this was given to the sons of a sultan. It was given personally
to Mehmed I.
Qelebi-Sultan . ‘Gentleman-prince.’ Up to 1594 it was the title given to those
of a sultan’s sons who governed provinces.
Qelik. ‘Steel.’ Given to 2455/Mustafa.
Qerkes. ‘Circassian.’ See 2440/Osman.
Quhadar. ‘Chamberlain.’
Damad-i §ehriyari . ‘Imperial son-in-law.’ Given to those who married
daughters of the sultans. Technically, it should only be applied to the
1 See p. 17, and Gibb and Bowen, i. 139.
2 See von Hammer, iii. 451.
5707
I
1 1 4 TITLES USED BY THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY
husbands of those daughters who married during their father’s reigns.
It was only habitually used to distinguish among several vizirs of the
same name.
Daye . ‘Foster-mother.’
Dayu ‘Uncle’, on the mother’s side.
Defter dar. ‘ T reasurer. ’
Deli . ‘Mad.’ Given to the two sultans, Mustafa I and Ibrahim, &c.
Divitdar. ‘Bearer of the Writing-case.’ See 1549/S.
Doganci. ‘Keeper of the Hawks.’ See 2224/Yusuf.
Diizme(ce). ‘False.’ Given to 538/Mustafa at the time of the rebellions in his
name, and indicating doubt as to his origin.
Eb'ulFeth. ‘Father of Conquests.’ Given to Mehmed II.
Efendi. ‘Sir’, ‘Esquire’. From the time of Abdiilmecid I given to the sons
of the sultans. Also the recognized title for members of the spiritual
hierarchy.
Egri. ‘Crooked.’ Given to 602/Cihangir, who was lame.
Egri-Fatihi. ‘Conqueror of Egir’ (Eger or Erlau). Given to Mehmed III.
Emir. ‘Ruler’, ‘Prince’. It applied to a semi-independent ruler and was used
by Osman I as long as he recognized the overlordship of the Seljuks.
It reappeared during the Great Interregnum to indicate that from
1402 to 1413 no one of Bayezid I’s sons could claim to be supreme
ruler.
Emir -ill Muminin . ‘Commander of the Faithful.’ One of the attributes of the
caliph, which passed to the Ottoman sultans after Selim I’s conquest of
Egypt ( C E ‘Halife’).
Eniste . ‘Brother-in-law.’ See 2339/Hasan.
Ermeni. ‘Armenian.’ Used of 2265/Suleyman.
Fahreddin. ‘Glory of the Faith.’ Given to Osman I.
Fatih. ‘The conqueror.’ Given to Mehmed II for his conquest of Constanti-
nople.
Fatih-i Bagdad. ‘Conqueror of Bagdad.’ Given to Murad IV.
Frenk. ‘Frank.’ Used of those from France, and by extension loosely of any-
one of European origin. Given to 2036/Ibrahim.
Gazi. ‘Fighter for the True Faith’ (Islam). Given to those who carried the
sword into ‘Dar-ul Harb’ and were victorious against the Christians; it
was associated particularly with Osman I, Orhan, Murad I, Bayezid I,
Mehmed II, and Murad IV. 1
Gerif . ‘Young.’ Given to Osman II and 2408/Mehmed.
Gozde. ‘In the eye — Favourite.’ For a sultan’s female slaves.
Gill. ‘Rose.’ Given to 23 89/ Ahmed.
Giilec. ‘Laughing’, ‘merry’. Given to 2421/Ali.
1 Wittek, Deux Chapitres, 305, quotes an inscription at Bursa (1337) which calls
Orhan, ‘Sultan, son of the Sultan of the Gazis, Gazi, son of Gazi, lord of the horizons,
hero of the world’. Siirreya, ii. 57, even uses it of Abdiilmecid I.
TITLES USED BY THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY 115
Giircii. ‘Georgian/ See 2283/Mehmed, &c.
Giiresfi. ‘The Wrestler/ Given to Mehmed I for his strength; there is some
doubt whether this or ‘Kiiriis9u’ (q.v.) was the correct form as applied
to this sultan.
Giivey . ‘Bride-groom’, ‘son-in-law’. Given to 1959/Sinan.
Guzelce . ‘Handsome.’ Given to 2070/Mahmud and 2002/Riistem.
Hace , Had. ‘Pilgrim/ The feminine and masculine forms respectively, of the
title given to those who completed the Pilgrimage to Mekka. 1
Hddim-iil Haremeyn-is §erifeyn. ‘Protector of the Two Holy Cities’ (Mekka
and Medina). Given to Selim I in 1517 by the Sherif of Mekka, who sent
him the keys of these cities (see ‘Halife’).
Hadim. ‘Eunuch/ Used of 2032/Ibrahim.
Hafiz. ‘Guardian’, and, by extension, one who knows the Koran by heart.
Given to 2228/Ahmed, 2416/Ahmed, &c.
■ Hakani. ‘Imperial/ Given to 2132/Mehmed.
Hakan-iil Berreyn vel Bahreyn. ‘Lord of the Lands and Seas/ One of the
sultan’s honorific titles, expressive of his grandiose claims to power.
Halife . ‘Caliph.’ The transfer of this title to Selim I and his heirs in 1 5 1 7 —
though some think it was retained by the last Abassid Caliph until his
death in 1538 — has ever since given rise to a great deal of acrimonious
discussion in Islam. . . . Cam. Mod. Hist . i. 9 1 , says : ‘It is one of the funda-
mental principles of Islam that all Muslims shall be governed by a single
Imam, and that Imam must be a member of the “Koreis”, the tribe of the
Prophet. At this time, 1517, the Imamship was in the hands of a shadow,
Mehmed Abu Cafer, of the race of Hasim, who kept up the semblance
of a Court at Cairo. The last of the Caliphs of the Abassid line, he resigned
the Caliphate to the Sultan Selim. This formal transference is the basis
of the claims of the Sultans of Turkey to be the Imams or supreme rulers
of Islam, though they have not a drop of “Koreis” blood in their veins. The
translation of the Caliphate was confirmed by the recognition which Selim
received at the same time from the ‘ ‘ Serif ” of Mekka, who sent him the keys
of the Kaaba, thus designating him as the Protector of the Holy Places/
S. Lane-Poole, Egypt , 265, 355, says: ‘The second or Egyptian dynasty
of Abassid Caliphs were restricted to such spiritual functions as the ritual
of the mosque afforded. They formed, however, the technical centre of
Islam and served to connect the old Caliphate of Bagdad with the modern
Sultans of Turkey, to whom they bequeathed such rights as they were
able to bestow . . . . The legality of the inheritance is repudiated not only
by the Shiah, but by the majority of learned Sunni, who are aware that
a caliph must belong to the Prophet’s tribe of the “Koreis” ; but w hatever
they may be “dejure”, the Sultans of Turkey have been “de facto” caliphs
of the greater part of orthodox Islam ever since the death of Miitevekil/
1 See p. 125.
n6
TITLES USED BY THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY
Note also the position of Abdiilmecid (II), who was allowed to assume
the position of caliph in 1922, without being sultan. 1
Han. ‘Lord’, ‘Prince’. As used by the rulers of Krim. Given by Selim II to
his grandson, 2165/Ibrahim.
Hangerli. ‘With a Dagger.’ Given to 1945/Fatma.
Hamm. ‘Lady.’
Hamm Sultan. ‘Princess Lady.’ Given to the granddaughters of the sultans in
the female line.
Hantal. ‘Clumsy.’ Given to 2392/Hafaf.
Haseki Sultan. ‘Princess Favourite.’ Given to those favourites of the sultan
who bore him sons; generally limited to the first four or six to become
mothers.
Haseki Kadm . ‘Lady Favourite.’ Given to the mothers of the sultan’s
daughters.
Hatun. ‘Lady.’ Used in the Early Period for the sultan’s legal wives, and
instead of the later ‘Valide Sultan*.
Helvact. ‘Seller of Sweetmeats.’ Given to 2321 /Yusuf.
Hezarpare . ‘A Thousand Pieces.’ Given posthumously to 2311/Ahmed, in
reference to his assassination.
Humayun. ‘Royal.’ From ‘Humay’, the royal vulture.
Hunkar. ‘Sovereign.’ Given to Murad I and Mehmed II. 2
Hiidavendigdr. ‘Dominator’, ‘Lord’. Given to Murad I, and then transferred
to his ‘sancak’ of Bursa. Also applied to Orhan and Murad II. 3
Ikbal . ‘Fortunate.’ The first rank of advancement in the harem.
ilhami. ‘Inspired.’ Given to Selim III.
Kadm. ‘Lady.’
Kalaylikoz. ‘Blanched Nut.’ Given to 2160/Ali. 4
Kanbur. ‘Hunch-backed.’ Given to Mahmud I and 2239/Mustafa.
Kanh. ‘Bloody.’ Given to Abdiilhamid II, for his repressive policies.
Kanuni. ‘The Law-giver.’ Given to Mehmed II s and more particularly to
Suleyman I.
Kapici-Bast. ‘Head Door-keeper.’
Kapudan Pasa. ‘Admiral.’ Title held by the head of the Ottoman Navy.
Kara. ‘Black.’ Given to Osman I and many others.
Karacehennem . ‘Black Hell.’ Given to 2620/Faik.
Karakas. ‘Black-browed.’ Given to 2230/Mehmed.
Kehle-i ikbal. ‘The Louse of Fortune.’ Given to 2126/Riistem. 6
Kel. ‘Bald.’ Given to 23 81 /Ahmed.
Kethuda. ‘Steward.’
1 See Gibb and Bowen, i. 31-34; /.A, ‘Halife’; Hayder, 17, 270; Dam$mend, ii. 29,
36, 43 -
2 See l.A. v. 578.
4 For another explanation see Dani§mend, iii. 560.
5 See Cam. Med. Hist. iv. 705.
3 Ibid.
6 See Dani§mend, ii. 248.
TITLES USED BY THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY 117
Ktz. ‘Daughter/
Kizil ‘Red/ See 693/Ahmed.
Koca. ‘Big/
Kozbeyci. ‘Nut-seller/ Given to 2241/Yusuf.
Komiircii . ‘Coke-seller/ Given to 2404/Ali.
Rose. ‘Beardless/ Given to 2472/Mustafa.
Krai. ‘King/ A Serbian title.
Kul. ‘Slave/
Kuloglu. ‘Son of a Slave/ See 2337/Siileyman.
Kundakfi . ‘Incendiary/ See 2239/Mustafa.
Kunduraci . ‘Cobbler/ See 2393/Mehmed.
Kurt. ‘Wolf/ See 2604/ Ahmed.
Kufiik. ‘Little/
Kiiriisfii . ‘Maker of Bow-strings/ Given to Mehmed I, as this was the trade
he followed. (Cf. ‘Gures^’.)
Lala . ‘Tutor/ Given especially to the tutors attached to the young princes,
both at court and when transferred to their provincial governorates. See
2200/Mustafa, &c.
- lil-hj-lu . ‘From. . / Attached to place-names, it is used to indicate the
town of origin of a person; e.g. 2406/Nevsehir-li Ibrahim, and 2347/
Merzifon-lu Mustafa.
Makbul. ‘Favourite/ Given to 2036/Ibrahim.
Maktul. ‘Assassinated/ Given to 2036/Ibrahim and 2347/Mustafa.
Mehd~i Ulyay-i Saltanat . ‘Cradle of the Great Sultan/ Another name for the
‘Valide Sultan*.
Mekri. ‘Cunning/ Given to 2126/Riistem.
Melek. ‘Angel/ Given to 2243/Ahmed and 2275/Ibrahim, &c.
Mest. ‘Sot/ Given to Selim II.
Meyvei. ‘Fruit-seller/ Given to 2190/Hasan.
Mirahor. ‘Keeper of the Stables/ From ‘Emir Ahor\
Mirza. ‘Prince/ A Persian title. See 2377/Mehmed.
Molla. ‘Mullah/ See 2480/Ahmed.
Muhassil. ‘Tax-collector/ See 2365/Abdullah.
Muhsin . ‘Benefactor/ See 2401 /Mehmed.
Muhtesem. ‘Magnificent/ Given to Suleyman I by Europeans, not Turks.
Muid. ‘School usher/ Given to 2292/Ahmed.
Musahip. ‘Companion*, and by extension ‘Favourite*.
Miifettis. ‘Inspector/ Given to 2296/Ismail.
Miiverrih. ‘Historian/ Given to 2058/Liith.
A abilj Nabila. ‘Prince/Princess/ An Egyptian title. See 2614/Kerime.
Naip . ‘Regent/
Nakkas. ‘Decorator/ Given to 2255/Mustafa.
A amzet. ‘Candidate/ Those engaged to a sultan *s daughters, where the
marriage is not yet completed.
n8
TITLES USED BY THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY
Nisanci. ‘Keeper of the Seal.’ 1
-oglu. ‘Son of. . .
Oguz. ‘Pure’ or ‘Young Bull*. Given to 2246/Mehmed.
Osmancik. ‘Little Osman.’ For Osman I.
Okuz. ‘Ox.* Given to 2246/Mehmed.
Padisah. ‘Sovereign.* A title of Persian origin, indicating supreme rank and
jealously guarded by the sultans, for its use by any other person would
imply equality of rank with the sultan. In later times it was accorded to
the French kings. 2
Palabiyik . ‘With long, curved moustaches.* Given to 2321/Yusuf.
-pare. ‘Bit’, as in ‘Hezarpare and ‘§ekerpare*.
Pasa . ‘Lord.’
Pehlivan. ‘Champion’, ‘Wrestler*. Given to Mehmed I.
Perisan . ‘Wild.* Given to 2455/Mustafa.
Reis-iil Kiittab. ‘Chief of the Secretaries.’ 3
Rum . ‘Rumelia.* Basically it stands for Rome and territories of the Roman
Empire. Thus the Seljuks of Anatolia were distinguished by it from those
of Persia. It also stood for the European provinces of the Ottoman
Empire, as in ‘Rum Beylerbeyi*. 4
Sahib-i Kir an. ‘Lord of his Age.’ Given to Suleyman I and Murad IV.
Sahib-ul A§eret-el Kamilet. ‘He who completes the number ten.’ Also given to
Suleyman I, as the tenth sultan.
Sancak . ‘Flag*, ‘Province*.
Sancak-beyi. ‘Governor of a Province.’
Sarhos. ‘Drunkard.’ Given to Selim II, and 2421/Ali.
San . ‘Yellow’, ‘Pale’. Given to Selim II, 2280/Huseyin and 2297/Kenan.
Sartkfi. ‘Turban-maker.’ See 2338/Mustafa.
Sedef-i Diirr-i Hilafet. ‘Shell of the Pearl of the Caliphate.’ Another title of
the ‘Valide Sultan*.
Semen! Semiz. ‘Fat.* Given to 2129/Ahmed and 2138/Mehmed.
Serasker. ‘Commander-in-Chief.’ Given to the Head of the Army.
Seyyid. ‘Descendant of the Prophet.’ See 2461 /Ahmed and 2473/Mustafa.
Silahdar. ‘Sword-bearer.’ One of the sultan’s personal attendants; see 2317/
Yusuf, &c.
Sinek. ‘Fly.* Given to 2447/Mustafa.
Sipahi. ‘Cavalry officer.* See 2310/Mustafa.
Sirke. ‘Vinegar.’ Given to 2335/Osman.
Sigir. ‘Stall-fed Ox.’ Given to Selim II.
Sofu. ‘Devout.’ Given to Bayezid II.
Sultan. ‘Sultan’, ‘Prince’, ‘Princess’. It had at least three distinct uses. Strictly
speaking, when used to indicate the Head of the State, it should be used
1 See Gibb and Bowen, i. 117.
2 But Ibn Batuta, 140, uses it of Suleyman of Kastamonu.
' See Gibb and Bowen, i. 117. * See Le Strange, 127.
TITLES USED BY THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY
119
with ‘Han’, as in ‘Sultan Han Murad*. Without ‘Han’ and used in front
of a name it had the meaning of ‘Prince* and in this form was often used
for the sons of a sultan, particularly from the time of Mehmed II. If used
after a name, however, it meant ‘Princess*, as in Fatma Sultan. It was also
combined with ‘Haseki’ and ‘Valide* (qq.v.). 1
Sultan-iil Giizat . ‘Sultan of the Gazis.’ An early title given to Murad I and
others.
Sultanzade . ‘Son of a princess.* Given to the sons of a sultan’s daughters, or
their grandsons.
Siit-Kardesi. ‘Foster-brother.’
$ah. ‘Emperor.’ A Persian title.
§ah-i Alem Penah. ‘Emperor’, ‘Refuge of the world*. One of the sultan’s
honorific titles, Persian in origin.
?ahin . ‘Falcon.’ Given to 2162/Mehmed Sokollu.
QahzadejSehzade. ‘Son of the Emperor.* Introduced by Mehmed I and given
to the sultan’s sons.
§ehit. ‘Martyr’; i.e. one who died for the Faith in a Holy War. Given to
Murad I and Osman II.
§ehri. ‘Town-dweller.* Given to 2311/Ahmed.
§eyh. ‘Head Preacher’, ‘Sheikh’. Given to 1500/Edebali.
§eyh-iil Islam. ‘Mufti.* Under the Caliph, the Head of Islam.
§eytan. ‘Devil.* Given to 2275/Ibrahim.
Silcaeddin . ‘Hero of the Faith.’ Given to Orhan.
Tavasi. ‘Eunuch.’ Given to 2032/ibrahim.
TaviL ‘Tall.’ Given to 2162/Mehmed Sokollu.
Tekfur. ‘King.’ From the Armenian ‘Tagavor*.
Tirnakfi . ‘Swindler.’ Given to 2243/Ahmed and 2329/ibrahim.
Tiryaki. ‘Addict.’ Usually indicating addiction to drugs or smoking. Given to
2216/Hasan.
Topal. ‘Lame.’ Given to 2247/Recep and 2297/Kenan.
Tursu . ‘Pickled’ or ‘Peevish*. Given to 2425/Mehmed.
Tiiccar . ‘Merchant.’ See 2288/Mustafa.
Ugurlu. ‘Lucky.’ Given to 1796/Mehmed.
Uzun. ‘Long.’ See 1795/Hasan.
Vah. ‘Governor.*
Valide. ‘Mother.’
Valide Sultan. ‘Princess-Mother.* Given to the mother of the sultan, during
his reign; introduced in the sixteenth century.
Veit. ‘Saint.’ Given to Bayezid II.
V eliaht. ‘Crown-prince.’ Given in the Later Period to the heir-presumptive,
but it was not really legalized until the Constitution of 1876 fixed the
1 For a detailed study, see E.I., ‘Sultan’, and Uzun9ar$ih, S.T . 230-4. Orhan clearly
seems to have been the first to use this title (see p. 1 14, n. 1); on this point, see Atiya,
Nicopolis , 157-60.
120 TITLES USED BY THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY
Succession in the ‘Eldest Male’ and so defined who was the heir at any
given time. Mehmed VI was even given the title of ‘Veliaht-i sanii
saltanat’ (Second Heir to the Throne), similar to the position of ‘Nured-
din’ among the Krim Hans. 1
Vezir. ‘Bearer of the Burden’, ‘Minister’, ‘Vizir’.
Vezir-i Azam . ‘Chief Minister’, ‘Grand Vizir’. Another form of this was
‘Sadr-i Azam’.
Voynuk. ‘Bulgarian Skirmisher.’ Given to 2229/Ahmed.
Voyvoda. ‘Governor’, of one of the Principalities (Moldavia and Wallachia).
Yaghkfi. ‘Napkin-seller.’ See 2469/Yusuf.
Yavuz. ‘Grim.’ Given to Selim I.
Yemen-Fatihi. ‘Conqueror of the Yemen/ Given to 2072/Sinan.
Yemisfi. ‘Fruit-seller.’ Given to 2190/Hasan.
Yeniferi. ‘New Troops.’ The famous Janissaries.
Ytldmm. ‘Thunderbolt.’ Given to Bayezid I.
- zade . ‘Son of. . . .’ Its meaning is generally extended to ‘Descendant of . . .’
* See Orik, in R.T.M. iv. 2387.
XVI
NAMES USED BY THE OTTOMAN
DYNASTY
The Ottoman family appears to have had a fairly catholic taste in
regard to the choice of names. Among some two hundred and fifty
sons there are just over fifty names, of which Mehmed is easily the
most common, followed by Ahmed, Suleyman, and Murad. For a
similar number of daughters there are almost eighty different names,
of which Fatma, Hadice, and Esma occur most frequently. 1
A definite trend, dating from the seventeenth century, can be
noticed for the introduction of Arabic names in place of those which
may be described as more typically Turkish. Alongside this process
came the increasing popularity of 'double-barrelled’ names, such as
Mehmed Vahdeddin or Rukiye Sabiha, in the Later Period.
One other general custom with regard to names was that, if one
of a Sultan’s children happened to die young, his or her name was
often given to the next child of the same sex to be born. So one
comes across the five Ahmed of Mahmud II, and the four Mehmed
and three Hadice of Ahmed III. 2
The most remarkable, though by no means the most popular, of
names which recur through the dynasty is that of Mustafa, which
seems to have borne a curse for the House of Osman. The first
prince to bear the name was 538/Mustafa, the son of Bayezid I;
he disappeared after the Battle of Ankara and returned — or was
impersonated — to cause trouble during his brother Mehmed I’s
reign. He was executed by Murad II early in 1423. Soon afterwards
another, 554/Mustafa, son of Mehmed I, also rose in rebellion and
he, too, was executed in the same year. 3 Mehmed II’s son, 571/
Mustafa, met with an unfortunate death in 1474, while resident in
1 The figures are: Mehmed 37, Ahmed 21, Suleyman 16, Murad 15, followed by
Mahmud and Selim, Mustafa and Bayezid; Fatma 22, Hadice 15, Esma 11, Ayse 10,
and Rukiye 7.
2 ‘The custom, still prevalent in Anatolia, of giving the name of a dead son to the
next son to be bom, can be traced back to that time [Bayezid I].’ Kep9ioglu, in Vaktf
Derg is i t ii. 409.
3 For these two see p, 50.
122
NAMES USED BY THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY
his governorate. 1 6o6/Mustafa, son of Suleyman I, was hounded to
death by his stepmother 151/Hurrem and half-brother Selim II in
1553. Selim II’s own son 613/Mustafa was executed in 1574 on his
brother’s accession, and Murad Ill’s son 635/Mustafa suffered the
same fate in the fratricidal purge which marked the accession of
Mehmed III in 1595. The first Sultan to bear the name, Mustafa I,
ruled twice, but was twice deposed on account of his incurable
madness. Osman II is said to have had a son, 671/Mustafa, but
there is no record of what happened to him. Sultan Mustafa II was
deposed, while Mustafa IV, the last prince to bear the name, was
both deposed and executed in 1808. Mustafa III alone seems to
have been able to ward off the evil influence of his name.
Several other names deserve to be mentioned as well. Professor
Uzun(,'arsih points out that Osman I named two of his sons by
courtesy after two of his more important contemporaries in Anatolia :
502/^oban after the ‘Ilhanhlar Beylerbeyi’ Emir £oban, and 503/
Hamid after Hamidoglu Diindar Bey. 2
Then Professor Wittek, commenting on the religious heterodoxy
of Simavna Bedreddin, asks whether there was any significance in
the names chosen by Bayezid I for three of his sons: 540/Siileyman
(Solomon), 537/Musa (Moses), and 532/Isa (Jesus). This is quite
possible, but other explanations could be put forward. To begin
with, Suleyman was already a name of importance in the Ottoman
family, having been borne by 40/Siileyman Sah and 514/Suleyman
Pa§a. Even the other two might equally be expressions of the
influence of the Sultan’s Christian wife 81 /Despina, who wielded
great power over Bayezid. 3
Finally, there is the case of the three sons of Abdiilhamid I:
770/Abdullah, 771/Abdiilaziz, and 772/Abdiirrahim ; as all three
were stillborn, they should not have received any name at all. 4
1 See Uzungar^ih, O.T. ii. 108.
2 Uzun^ar^ili, O.T. i. 30, n. 2.
3 Wittek, ‘Ankara*, in Belleten , 27. 587, n. 42.
4 Siirreya, i. 53, ‘Bi-ruh olarak tevelliid ettiler’. (They were bom without souls.)
XVII
TRADES OF THE SULTANS
Although the sultans came to hold such an exalted position in
the world, yet they were brought up ‘in conformity with the old
Turkish tradition that everyone, even royalty, should be trained in
some one trade or craft, that might prove a resource in event of
misfortune ’. 1
Quite possibly this custom really had its origin in the connexion
between the early Ottoman sultans and the ‘Ahiler’, of whose
activities we catch glimpses in the pages of Ibn Battuta. Certainly
they and their descendants, the Trade Guilds described by Bus-
becq and others, were always very influential in the ceremonial life
of the court and capital . 2
Records of the trades of the different sultans are not complete,
but there is sufficient evidence to show that they were taken seri-
ously by the sultans. More than that, they reveal a wide variety of
interests. The first of whom anything is known is Mehmed I, whose
name ‘Kurii^ii’ shows that he was a maker of strings for bows.
Mehmed II was a gardener, ‘attaining much skill in this occupation
and deriving such pleasure from it, that he spent much of his leisure,
in the intervals between campaigns, working in the gardens of the
Grand Seraglio and other palaces ’. 3 Selim I and Suleyman I turned
their hands to the art of the goldsmith, while Selim II made cres-
cents for the staffs of pilgrims on their way to the Holy Cities.
Murad III made arrows, while Mehmed III was skilful in making
spoons and the special thumb-rings used by archers, as was his son
1 See B. Miller, Palace School , 27, based on Spandugino, ibid. 97: ‘There is not any
prince or lord so great, even the Emperor himself, that he does not cause his children
to be instructed in some art or science by means of which he could earn his livelihood,
in case he should fall upon evil days/
2 Purchas, 1829: ‘The Grand Sultan — Ahmed I — is of the Company of Archers, as
most of the Sultans of the Ottoman family have been free of some company or other.
His father Mehmed was of the Company of Ring-Makers.*
3 B. Miller, Palace School , 27, and quoting Angiolello, ibid. 98 : ‘This same Mehmed
was also accustomed to fashion rings for the bow, buckles for the girdle, and sheaths
for the sword, which things he did merely for passing the time.*
124
TRADES OF THE SULTANS
Ahmed I. 1 Mehmed IV was so much a poet that it might almost be
regarded as his trade; he even wrote military dispatches in verse.
One of the last sultans to exercise a trade was Abdiilhamid II, who
was interested in inlaid damascene work.
While there was never any pecuniary interest in these works, they
did bring in quite a steady revenue to the sultans concerned. Small
examples of the sultan’s handicraft were often presented as gifts to
those attending the court, an action which called for immediate
reciprocation with a gift of far greater value.
1 Sandys, 73 : ‘Ahmed's occupation, for they are all tied to have one, is the making of
ivory rings, which they wear upon their thumbs, when they shoote, whereupon he
works daily.’
XVIII
THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY AND THE ‘HAC’
It is remarkable that, although the Ottoman dynasty was at all
times Muslim and from the time of Selim I the sultans held the
supreme office of caliph, yet less than half a dozen members of the
House of Osman ever earned the title of ‘Haci, Hace’ (Pilgrim) by
performing the pilgrimage to Mekka which is enjoined on all good
Muslims.
The first member of the family to reach the Holy City was a
woman, 1045/D., the daughter of Mehmed I and widow of 1701/
Mahmud Qandarli Pa§a; then there was 1646/Hundi, while en-
gaged to Zahir £akmak, in 850 [5.1. 1447]. 1 Two other women,
27o/Ay§e Buhari, wife of Ahmed III, and 29o/Ay$e, wife of
Mahmud I, also made their pilgrimages in the eighteenth century.
It is said that Bayezid II was on the point of leaving Amasya for
Mekka when he received the news of his father’s death and imme-
diately gave up his intention for the more important work of assert-
ing his title to the throne. It is reasonable, knowing Bayezid’s
character, to think that this tradition is true. 2 The period of civil
war which followed, ended in the flight of 570/Cem to the court of
the Mameluke sultan Kaitbay. While in Egypt Cem decided to
fulfil his religious duties and set out for Mekka early in 1482, but
it is not quite clear whether he actually reached the Holy City. 3
Bayezid IPs son 583/Korkud also set out on a pilgrimage, but was
turned back when he reached the frontier of Egypt.
Surprisingly enough, although Selim I was presented with the
keys and declared Protector of the Holy Cities, by the ‘$erif of
1 Von Hammer, iii. 351, and Uzun^ar^ih, in Belleten , 68. 524, respectively.
2 Cantemir, 116: ‘Bayezid was now at Amasya and thinking of “Hac”, or a pilgrim-
age, to Mekka, when an unexpected message came to him from the Vizir that his father
was dead and had appointed him his successor. He received also a letter signed by the
Vizir and the rest of the great men, exhorting him to come and take possession of the
throne, and leave his intended pilgrimage to men of lower birth and more leisure.’
Cantemir then goes on to say that piety won the day and Bayezid sent Korkud to act as
regent for nine months while he performed his pilgrimage — a complete travesty of the
facts.
3 Compare von Hammer, iv. 14, E.I. i. 1034 and Uzun9ar$ili, O.T. ii. 159. Fisher,
26, says he did it for propaganda purposes.
126
THE OTTOMAN DYNASTY AND THE ‘HAC’
Mekka, while in Cairo in 1517, he never seems to have considered
seriously the idea of performing his pilgrimage. Was it fundamental
irreligion on his part or merely military necessity which kept him
away — since he was there at the proper time of the year ?
Nothing more was heard of Mekka — apart from the annual
caravan of gifts sent by the sultan 1 — until in 1622 Osman II an-
nounced his intention of going there. As we have seen, 2 his real
intentions, however, were far from religious ; his idea was to go as
far as Syria or perhaps Arabia and there collect a loyal and well-
disciplined army with which he might return to the capital and
crush the Janissaries. The ‘^eyh-iil Islam' — Osman’s father-in-law
2260/Esad Efendi — warned him of the danger of leaving the capital
and sent him a ‘Fetva’ declaring that it was unnecessary for a sultan
to make the pilgrimage. Osman was all ready to cross the Bosphorus
on the first stage of his journey, but the Janissaries rose against him.
They obtained a second ‘Fetva’, aimed at those who had suggested
the pilgrimage; with this they forced the Sultan to remain in the
capital, where they soon deposed and executed him. 3
The last of the dynasty, Mehmed VI, visited Mekka soon after
his deposition, but on realizing that Serif Hiiseyin was manoeuv-
ring for the transfer to himself of the title ‘Caliph’, Mehmed VI
withdrew from Mekka as soon as possible, without waiting to per-
form the pilgrimage. 4 So ended the connexion between the sultans
and the Holy Cities of which they had been the special Protectors. 5
1 The ‘Siirre Alayi’ (Procession of Gifts), led by the ‘Emir ul-Hac’, and the many
acts of charity performed by the sultans may all be considered as ‘lskat-i Hac’ an
act of appeasement.
2 See p. 64.
3 See von Hammer, viii. 290.
4 See Hayder, 251-2.
5 It is possible that minor members of the family have made their pilgrimages in
recent years, but they have not been recorded.
■ BURSA (Capitals)
Seged/n x f amurtu (Battles)
* Amas ga (Princely Governorates )
0 50 too 150 Miles
THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
Scale i : 15,000,000
Table XVII. The Genealogy of the Sultans
i /Osman I
2/Orhan
3/Murad I
4/Bayezid I
5/Mehmed I
6/Murad II
7/Mehmed II
8/Bay ezid II
g/Selim I
10/Siileyman I
1 1 /Selim II
12/Murad III
13/Mehmed III
14/Ahmed I 15/Mustafa I
I I Tl
16/Osman II 17/Murad IV 18/Ibrahim
I I I
19/Mehmed IV 20/Suleyman II 21/Ahmed II
i I
22/Mustafa II 23/AJimed III
I I 1 I
24/Mahmud I 25/Osman III 26/Mustafa III 27/Abdiilhamid I
l 1
1 1 1
28/Selim III 29/Mustafa IV 30/Mahmud II
1
31/Abduimedd 1 32/AbdiHaziz
1 1 1 1 1
33/Murad V 34/Abdulhamid II 3 5/Mehmed V 36/Mehmed VI 37/Abdulmecid (IIj
Table XVIII. The Sultans, with Dates of Accession
Sultan
Date of accession
i /Osman I
680 [1281] (Tribal Authority)
699 [1300] (Independence)
2/Orhan
724 [1324]
3/Murad I
761 [1360]
4/Bayezid I
791 [6. 1389]
(Fetret Zamani)
804 [28. 7. 1402]
5/Mehmed I
816 [5. 7- Hi3]
6/Murad II (A)
824 [26. 5. 1421]
7/Mehmed II (A)
848 [1. 12. 1444]
Murad II (B)
850 [9. 1446]
Mehmed II (B)
855 [ 3 - 2. 1451]
8/Bayezid II
886 [3. 5. 1481]
g/Selim I
918 [24. 4. 1512]
10/Siileyman I
926 [22. 9. 1520]
1 i/Selim II
974 [7. 9* 1566]
12/Murad III
982 [15. 12. 1574]
13/Mehmed III
1003 [16. 1. 1595]
14/Ahmed I
1012 [21. 12. 1603]
15/Mustafa I (A)
1026 [22. 11. 1617]
16/Osman II
1027 [26. 2. 1618]
Mustafa I (B)
1031 [19. 5. 1622]
17/Murad IV
1032 [10. 9. 1623]
1 8/ Ibrahim
1049 [9. 2. 1640]
ig/Mehmed IV
1058 [8. 8. 1648]
20/Suleyman II
1099 [9. 11. 1687]
2 1 /Ahmed II
1 102 [23. 6. 1691]
2 2 /Mustafa II
1106 [6. 2. 1695]
23/Ahmed III
1 1 15 [22. 8. 1703]
24/Mahmud I
1143 [1. 10. 1730]
25/Osman III
1168 [14. 12. 1754]
26/Mustafa III
1171 [30. 10. 1757]
27/Abdiilhamid I
1187 [21. 1. 1774 ]
28/Selim III
1203 [7. 4- 1789]
29/Mustafa IV
1222 [29. 5. 1807]
30/ Mahmud II
1223 [28. 7. 1808]
3 1 /Abdiilmecid I
1255 [1. 7. 1839]
32/Abdiilaziz
1277 [25. 6. 1861]
33/Murad V
1293 bo* 5' 1876]
34/Abdiilhamid II
1293 [31. 8. 1876]
3 5/Mehmed V Re§ad
1327 [27. 4. 1909]
36/Mehmed VI Vahdeddin
1336 [3- 7 - 1918]
1341 [1. 11. 1922] (Caliph only)
37 /Abdulmecid (II)
1341 [19. 11. 1922] (Caliph only)
to 1342 (3. 3. 1924]
5707
K
Table XIX. Ages and Reigns of the Sultans 1
Sultan
Age at
accession
Length of
reign
at end
of reign
death
i /Osman I
23
43
66
66
2/Orhan
36
36
72
72
3 /Murad I
34
29 .2
63
63
4/Bayezid I
29
I3-*
42
43
5/Mehmed I
24
7- 11
32
32
6/Murad II
17; 42
23 7; 4-4
40; 47
47
7/Mehmed II
12 .8; 18 .11
I.JO; 30.3
14.6 ; 49. 1
49.J
8/Bayezid 11
33-3
31
64*3
64.4
9/Selim I
42
8.5
50
50
io/Suleyman I
25.JJ
46
71. IO
71.70
n/Selim II
4 2.3
8.3
5°*7
50.7
12/Murad III
28.5
2.0.1
48.6
48.6
13/Mehmed III
28 .8
8 .11
37-7
37*7
1 4/ Ahmed I
13- 8
13.11
27.7
27.7
1 5 /Mustafa I
25; 30
—.3; 1.4
25-3; 31
46
16/Osman II
1 3-4
4.3
17.7
17.7
17/Murad IV
14
16.5
3°*5
3°*5
18/lbrahim
24.3
8.6
32.9
32.9
19/Mehmed IV
6.7
39 *3
45.20
51
20/Stileyman II
45-7
3*7
49.2
49*2
21/Ahmed II
48 A
3*7
51. 77
22/Mustafa II
30.8
8.7
39-3
39-7
23/Ahmed III
29 .8
27.J
56.9
62.5
24/Mahmud I
34-*
24.2
58.4
58.4
25 /Osman III
55 - 11
2.11
58.70
58.70
26/Mustafa III
40.9
16.3
57
57
27/Abdulhamid I
48. 10
15.3
64.7
64.7
28/Selim III
27 -4
18.2
450
46.7
29/Mustafa IV
27.9
1.2
28.77
29.2
30/Mahmud II
23
30.11
53*^
53.77
31/Abdulmecid I
16.2
22
38.2
38.2
32/Abdulaziz
3i-4
14.77
46 -4
46.4
3 3 /Murad V
35.*
—.3
35-^
63.77
34/Abdulhamid II
33 * 11
32.#
66.7
75.5
3 5/Mehmed V
64.6
9.2
73- 5
73.3
36/Mehmed VI
57 *5
4-4
61.9
65.3
37/Abdulmecid (II)
54 -5
1.3
55.S
76.2
Average 2
3 1*9
17*3
50.5
5i-4
1 All ages are calculated to the nearest month.
2 The averages are calculated as if Murad II, Mehmed II, and Mustafa I each reigned
once only.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
This section contains details of all the books and articles to which the author
has made reference in the text, and also of certain others which have a bearing
on the subjects under discussion. Usually references in the footnotes are given
only with the author’s name ; where this would lead to confusion between a
number of different works, short titles have been added and these are given
here in brackets after the full titles.
It is with a certain hesitation that references to a number of articles in three
Turkish magazines — Resimli Tarih Mecmuasi , Tarih Dunyasi , and Yeni Tarih
Diinyasi 1 — have been included. These magazines are essentially ‘popular’ in
aim and the articles are often far from scientific and lack proper documentation,
but for two reasons they must find a place. In them many hitherto unpublished
documents are presented, while some articles are the memoirs of those who
actually took part in the events described.
Abbot, G. F. Turkey in Transition. London, 1909.
Under the Turk in Constantinople. (Sir John Finch’s Embassy, 1674-81.)
London, 1920. (Cited as Finch.)
Aksut, A. K. ‘Yusuf Izzeddin’e dair yeni vesikalar.’ (In T.D. i. 62.) Istanbul,
I 95°*
Akyurt, M. Y. ‘Konya Asan Atika Muzesinde Mevlana Celaleddin Ruminin
Sandukasi.’ (In Turk Tarih , Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi , iii. 113.)
Istanbul, 1936.
Amca, H. ‘Taklibi Hukiimet ve Prens Sabahaddin.’ (In T.D. iv. 1359, &c.)
Istanbul, 1952.
Anonymous. La Grande Cruaute et Tyrannie exercee par Mustafa. . . . Paris,
1618.
‘Damat Ferid nasil damat oldu?’ (In T.D. ii. 762.) Istanbul, 1950,
Arabshah. Tamerlane , or Timur the Great Amir. (Edited Sanders.) London,
1936.
Artuk, I ve C. Fatih' in Sikke ve Madalyalan. Istanbul, 1946.
Ataker, M. ‘Mill! Miicadelede §ehzade Faruk Efendi Anadoluya nasil gitmi§ ve
donmiistu ? (In R.T.M. iii. 1498, See.) Istanbul, 1952.
Atiya, A. S. The Crusade of Nicopolis. London, 1934. (Cited as Nicopolis.)
* The Crusade in the Later Middle Ages. London, 1938’ (Cited as Crusade.)
Babinger, F. B. ‘ S til ej man’s des Prachtigen Geburtstag.’ (In Mitteilungen
zur Osmanischen Geschichte , ii. 165.) Hanover, 1926.
‘Mehmed’s II Heirat mit Sitt-Chatun (1449).* (In Der Islam , xxix, 1949,
217.) Berlin, 1949.
* ‘Mehmed’s II des Eroberers Geburtstag.’ (In Oriens f 11. i. 1.) Leiden,
J 949*
‘Von Amurath zu Amurath. Vor und Nachspiel der Schlacht bei
Varna (1444)/ (In Oriens, III. ii. 229.) Leiden, 1950.
Mehmed II le Conquerant et son temps, (j 432— Si .) (Trans, del Medico, H. E.)
Paris, 1954. (Cited as Mehmed II.)
‘Fatih Sultan Mehmed ve Italya.’ (Translated from German and Italian
texts.) In Belleten y 65. 41-82.) Ankara, 1953.
1 Referred to respectively as R.T.M . , T.D. f and Y.T.D.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
132
Baykal, 1 . ‘Veliahd Yusuf Izzeddin Efendi nasil intihar etti?’ (In T.D. i.
487, &c.) Istanbul, 1950.
‘Halifesi Abdulmecid’in sarayinda neler gord^im?* (In T.D. ii. 822.)
Istanbul, 1951.
Bayri, M. H. ‘Halk Edebiyatinda Edime Vakasi.’ (In T.D. iii. 959.) Istanbul,
I951 *
Baysun, A. R. ‘Enver Pa§a nasil §ehit edildi?’ (In T.D. iii. 1155.) Istanbul,
1952 .
Bell, Sir C. Portrait of the Dalai Lama. London, 1946.
Belleten. See ‘Turk Tarih Kurumu\
Bowen, H. British Contribution to Turkish Studies. London, 1945.
Brockelmann, C. History of the Islamic Peoples. London, 1949.
BroquiI:re, B. de la. Voyages d'Outremer. (Edited Schefer.) Paris, 1892.
Brown, J. P. Ancient and Modern Constantinople. London, 1868.
Busbecq, O. G. de. The Turkish Letters of. .. . (Translated by Forster, G. S.)
Oxford, 1927.
Cambridge. The Cambridge Modern History. Cambridge, 1902-.
The Cambridge Medieval History, iv. Cambridge, 1936.
Cantemir, D. History of the Growth and Decay of the Ottoman Empire. (Trans-
lated Tyndall, N.) London, 1734.
Castellan, A. L. Mceurs, usages, costumes des Othomans, &c. Paris, 1812.
Chalco condyles, L. Histoire . . . des Turcs. (Translated by Vigenere, B. de.)
Rouen, 1660. With continuations by Artus and Mezeray.
Clavijo. Embassy to Tamerlane (1403-6). (Edited, Le Strange, G.) London,
1934 *
Coryates, T. Description. (In Purchas, q.v.)
Covel, Dr. J. The Diaries of .. . (1670-9). (Edited by Bent, J. T.) London,
l893 '
K. ‘Padi^ah’in acikh Feryatnamesi.’ (In T.D. ii. 522.) Istanbul, 1950.
Dallam, T. The Diary of Master . . . (1599-1600). (Edited by Bent, J. T.)
London, 1893.
Danismend, I. H. Osmanh Tarihi Kronolojisi. 4 vols. Istanbul, iQ47-ce
(Cited as O.T.K. i, &c.)
Fatih' in Hayati ve Fetih Takvimi. Part I. (Istanbul Fethi Demegi
Yaymlari, 6). Istanbul, 1953.
Deny, J. ‘Valide Sultanlar.* (In Encyclopedia of Islam.)
Don Juan. Memoirs of . . ., of Persia. (Edited by Le Strange, G.) London, 1926.
Ducange, C. du F. Historia Byzantina. Paris, 1680.
Edib, H. Sinnekli Bakkal. Istanbul, 1943. (Translated as The Clown and His
Daughter, London, 1935.)
Encyclopaedia Britannica. Xlth Edition.
Encyclopedia of Islam. (Edited by Houtsma, Bassett, Arnold, and Hartmann,
&c.) Leiden, 1913.
Encyclopedia of World History. (Edited by Langer, W. L.) London, 1940.
Erdo6an, A. ‘Silivrikapi’da Hadim ibrahim Pa§a Camii.’ (In Vakif Dergisi ,
i. 33.) Ankara, 1938.
Eremya (Qelebi Komurcuyan). XVII Asirda Istanbul. (Edited by Andreasyan,
H. D.) Istanbul, 1952.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
i33
ErgIns, Z. ‘Osmanli Haremi ne zaman kuruldu?’ (In T.D. i. 362.) istanbul,
I95 °*
Erksan, A. C. ‘Selim III ve Alemdar Mustafa Pa§a.’ {T.D. ozel iii.) Istanbul,
. I95 °‘
EvlIya (Qelebi). Narrative of Travels in Europe , Asia and Africa in the ijth
Century. (Translated by von Hammer.) London, 1834.
Fisher, S. N. The Foreign Relations of Turkey , 1481— 1 512. Urbana, Illinois,
I948 -
Fugger. The Fngger News-Letters , 1 568-1605. (Edited by von Klarwill, V.)
London, 1924.
Gibb, H. A. R., and Bowen, H. Islamic Society and the West . 1. i. London,
1950 -
Gibbon, E. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. (Edited by Bury, J. B.)
London, 1896, &c.
Gibbons, H. A. The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire. Oxford, 1916.
Giese, F. G. ‘Das Seniorat im osmanischen Herscherhause.’ (In Mitteilungen
zur Osmanischen Geschichte y 11.) Hanover, 1926.
Giz, A. ‘Giilnu? Sultan.’ (In T.D. i. 16.) Istanbul, 1950.
‘Ug Ya^inda evlenen Sultanlar.’ (In T.D. i. 105.) istanbul, 1950.
‘Alti Vezirle evlenen bir Sultan, Ay§e Sultan.’ (In T.D. i. 283.) Istanbul
I95 °*
‘Ikinci Mahmud’un Kizlan.’ (In T.D. i. 317, &c.) Istanbul, 1950.
‘Ugiincu Ahmed’in Ogullari.’ (In T.D . i. 678.) Istanbul, 1950.
‘Makbul Ibrahim Pa$a’nm Damathgi Meselesi.* (In R.T.M. iv. 2793.)
Istanbul, 1953.
Gotha. Almanach de Gotha. 1761-1943. (Edited by Justus Perthes.) Gotha,
1761, &c.
Govsa, I. A. Turk Me$hurlan. Istanbul, 1946.
Halecki. The Crusade of Varna — a Discussion in Controversial Problems.
New York, 1943.
von Hammer, J. Des Osmanischen Reichs Staatsverfassung und Staatsverwal -
tung. Wien, 1815.
Histoire de V Empire Ottomane. (Translated by Hellert.) Paris, 1843.
Hasluck, F. W. Christianity and Islam under the Sultans. Oxford, 1929.
Hayder, $erif A. A Prince of Arabia. (Edited by Stitt, G.) London, 1948.
Hinz, W. Uzun Hasan ve §eyh Ciineyd. (Translated by Biyikhoglu, T.)
Ankara, 1948.
Historian's History of the World , xxiv. London, 1907.
Hony, H. C. Turkish— English Dictionary. Oxford, 1947.
Ibn Batuta. Travels in Asia and Africa , 1325-54. (Edited by Gibb, H. A. R.)
London, 1929.
Inal, M. K. Son A sir Turk $airleri. ( 12 fasc.) Istanbul, 1930—42. (Cited as
§airleri.)
' Osmanli Devrinde Son Sadrazamlar. (14 fasc.) Istanbul, 1940-53. (Cited
as Sadrazamlar.)
Inci, T. ‘Dtizmece Mustafa hadisesi. . . (In R.T.M. iv. 2645.) Istanbul,
x 953-
Islam Ansiklopedisi. (A translation, with additions of the Encyclopedia of
Islam.) Istanbul, 1941, &c.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
i34
JoNQUifeRE, de la. Histoire de V Empire Ottomane. Paris, 1914.
Kafli, K. ‘Turhan Sultan.’ (In Y. T.D. i. 123.) Istanbul, 1953.
Karal, E, Z. Osmanh Tarihi. V. Nizam-i Cedit ve Tanzimat Devirleri,
1789—1856. Ankara, 1947* (Cited as O.T . v.)
Kepcio&lu, K. ‘Tarihi Bilgiler ve Vesikalar.’ (In Vakif Dergisi , ii. 405.)
Ankara, 1942.
KerImo&lu, S. ‘Sultan Ibrahim deli mi idi?’ (In T.D. iii. 1057.) Istanbul,
I95 1 -
Knolles, R. Generali Historie of the Turkes. London, 1603.
Kogu, R. E. ‘A§ik ve §air Padi^ahlar.’ {T.D. ozel iv). Istanbul, 1950.
‘Fatih bir suikaste mi kurban gitmi§ti?’ (In R.T.M. ii. 713.) Istanbul,
i95i-
Koprulu, M. F. Les Origines de VEmpire Ottomane. Pans, 1935.
‘Yildirim Bayezid’in esareti ve intihan.’ (In Belleten , 2. 591.) Ankara,
1937-
‘Yildirim Bayezid’in intihan meselesi.’ (In Belleten , 27. 591.) Ankara,
J944*
‘Osmanh imparatorlugunun Etnik men?ei meseleleri.’ (In Belleten , 28.
219.) Ankara, 1944. (Cited as ‘Etnik Men?ei’.)
Kuran, A. B. ‘31 Mart Hadisesi nasil oldu? (In T.D. i. 557.) Istanbul, 1950.
Damad Mahmud Pa?a. (In R.T.M. iii. 1613.) Istanbul, 1952.
Lamb, H. Siileyman the Magnificent. London, 1952.
Lane-Poole, S. Mohammedan Dynasties. Paris, 1925.
History of Egypt in the Middle Ages . London.
Langer, L., and Blake, R. P. ‘Rise of the Ottoman Turks and its Historical
Background.’ (In American Historical Reviezv , xxxvii. 468.) 1931.
Lavisse, E., et Rambaud, A. Histoire Generale dn IV e siecle a nos jours. Paris,
1893, &c.
Le Strange, G. The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate. Cambridge, 1930.
Lozan, S. ‘Abdulhamid’in Selamk’ten Getirili$i’. (In R.T.M. i. 1.) Istanbul,
1949.
Lybyer, A. H. The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman
the Magnificent. Cambridge (U.S.A.), 1913.
Mahler, E. — Wustenfeld. Vergleichungs Tahellen der mohammedanischen und
christlichen Zeitrechnungs. Leipzig, 1926.
Mamboury, E. The Tourists' Istanbul. (Trans. Burr, M.) Istanbul, 1953.
McCullagh. The Fall of Abdulhamid. London, 1910.
MelEK, Z. ‘(Jiragan Sarayi Vakasi.’ (In R.T.M. ii. 761.) Istanbul, 1951.
Mikes, K. ‘Patrona Halil isyan nasil ba§ladi, nasil bastinldi.’ (Translated
by Pirali, S.) (In Y.T.D. i. 175.) Istanbul, 1953.
Miller, B. Beyond the Sublime Porte. Yale, 1931.
The Palace School of Mehmed II. Harvard, 1941.
Miller, \V. The Latins in the Levant. London, 1908.
Mirmiroglu, V, Fatih' in Donanmasi ve Deniz Savaflan. Istanbul, 1946.
Moran, V. Tiirkfe — Ingilizce Sdzliik. Istanbul, 1945.
Mordtmann. ‘Damad.’ (In Encyclopedia of Islam.)
Morton, B. A. The Veiled Empress. New York, 1923.
Murat, F. ‘Bizans imparatorunun yamndaki Osmanh §ehzadesi Orhan Qelebi
kimdi?’ (In R.T.M. iv. 3033.) Istanbul, 1954. (Cited as ‘Orhan’.)
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
i35
Murat, F. ‘Frenklerin “Osmanh Papazi” dedikleri sahte §ehzade kimdir?’ (In
R.T.M. v. 3101). Istanbul, 1954. (Cited as ‘Osmanh Papazi'.)
M., Z. ‘Cemal Pa§a’nm Sultanhgi Meselesi/ (In .R.T.M. i. 12.) Istanbul, 1949.
Nmma. Annals of the Turkish Empire , 1000— JO; i§gi-i6^g. (Translated by
Fraser, C.) London, 1832.
NuRi, O. Abdiilhamid-i Sani ve Devr-i Salta?iati. (Quoted in T.D. i. 444.)
Istanbul, 1950.
Ohsson, M. DE. Tableau general de 1 ’ Empire Ottoman. Paris, 1787.
Orgun, Z. ‘Tugra — Tugralarda El-Muzaffer Daima Duasi ve §ah Unvam,
§ehzade Tugralari, Mehmed IFnin Tugra Imza ve Muhiirleri.' (In Turk
Tarih , Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi y v. 263.) Istanbul, 1949.
Osynarii Tarihi, i. (Gives the texts of Ahmedi, ^iikrullah, A§ikpa§aoglu A§iki,
Karamanli Nisanci Mehmed, Bayatli Mahmudoglu Hasan). Istanbul, 1949.
Orik, N. S. ‘Abdulhamid'in sevmedigi ve en sevdigi ogullari/ (In T.D. iii.
970.) Istanbul, 1951.
‘Vci Murad Kolu hakkinda son sozler.' (In T.D . iii. mo.) Istanbul,
1951 -
‘Son Damatlar.’ (In R.T.M. iii. 1212.) Istanbul, 1952.
‘Osmanh Hanedam kadm azasindan gidenler ve gelecek olanlar.* (In
R.T.M. iii. 1782.) Istanbul, 1952.
‘Iki Mustafa arasinda Ilci Sultan Murad/ (In Y.T.D. i. 6.) Istanbul, 1953.
‘Bir Qehreden bir ka^izgi (Mehmed VI)/ (In R.T.M. iv. 2387.) Istanbul,
I 953*
‘Sultan Mecid’in a§ik kizi/ (In Y.T.D. i. 223, See.) Istanbul, 1953.
— 1 50 Yihn Me$hnrlar Ansiklopedisi. Istanbul, 1954.
‘Osmanogullarimn ilk zamanlan iizerinde faraziye ve tahminler/ (In
Y.T.D. ii. 448.) Istanbul, 1954.
‘II Abdulhamid’in evladi/ (In Y.T.D. ii. 491.) Istanbul, 1954.
7 ‘Re?ad Efendi Taht Beklerken/ (In Y.T.D. ii. 534, &c.) Istanbul, 1954.
£>z, T. ‘Murad I ile Emir Suleyman’a ait iki vakfiye/ (In Tarih Vesikalan y
i. 4.) Istanbul, 1941.
‘Ahmed Fethi Pa$a ve Mlizeleri/ (In Tiirk Tarih , Arkeologya ve Etno-
grafya Dergisi y v. 1.) Istanbul, 1949.
‘Kanuni Sultan Siileyman'in Damadi Ibrahim Pa^a'nm mektuplari/
(In Y.T.D. i. 128.) Istanbul, 1953.
Pears, Sir E. ‘The Ottoman Turks to the Fall of Constantinople/ (In Cam-
bridge Medieval History , iv. 653.) Cambridge, 1937.
Penzer, N. M. The Harem. London, 1936.
Purchas. His Pilgrimes. London, 1625. Relevant material is :
p. 1372. The death of Osman and the setting up of Mustafa his uncle,
according to the Relation presented to His Majestye.
p. 1580. Withers, R. A Description of the Grant Seigneur's Seraglio or
Turkish Emperor's Court.
P- 1612. Letter of Osman II to James I.
p. 1822. Master Thomas Coryates. Description.
Refik, A. Hicri Onikinci Asir da Istanbul Hay ati. Istanbul, 1930.
— Kadinlar Saltanati . Istanbul (no date).
‘Son Devrin Osmanh §ehzadeleri ne Hallere dii§tuler?’ (In R.T.M. i.
480.) Istanbul, 1950.
I 3 6 select bibliography
REFiK, A. ‘Abdulhamid’in Na’§i oniinde.’ (In T.D. i. 94.) Istanbul, 1950.
‘Ondort ya^inda Gelin ve elli ya§mdaki Damat Fatma Sultanla ibrahim
Pa§a’nm mesut lzdiva9 hayatlari ve akibetleri.* (In R.T.M. iv. 2652.)
Istanbul, 1953.
‘Kaya Sultan.* (In R.T.M. iv. 2513.) Istanbul, 1953.
Resimli Tarih Mecmuasi. Istanbul, 1950, &c. (Cited as R.T.M.)
Resat, A. ‘Abdiilhamid II ve Kadinlar.* (In T.D. i. 443.) Istanbul, 1950.
Rifaat, M. The Awakening of Modern Egypt. London, 1947.
Roe, Sir T. Negotiations (1621-8). London, 1744.
Rosed ale, H. G. Queen Elizabeth and the Levant Company. London, 1904.
Rycaut, P. Present State of the Ottoman Empire. London, 1690.
R., S. ‘Kaynar bir Adam; Ali Suavi Efendi.* (In R.T.M. iv. 2374.) Istanbul,
1953 -
Sagredo. Memorie Istoriche. Venezia, 1677.
Sagman, A. R. ‘Fatih’in Anasi.* (In R.T.M. iv. 2312.) Istanbul, 1953.
Sandys, G. Relation of a Journey. London, 1637.
Sazlidere, ‘Talat Pa§a Vahdeddin’i nasil hal edecekti?’ (In R.T.M. iii.
1361.) Istanbul, 1952.
Schlumberger, G. S. Siege . . . de Constantinople . . . 1453. Paris, 1926.
Sedes, H. (General). ‘Qiragan Sarayi Vakasinm i^yuzli.* (In T.D. iii. 1143.
Istanbul, 1952.
Semih, M. S. Tkinci Hamid’in damadi Kemaleddin Pasa ile Besinci Murad’in
kizi arasinda bir a$k macerasi.’ (In R.T.M. i. 343.) Istanbul, 1950.
Serto 6 lu, M. ‘Son Osmanli Padi§ahi Vahdettin’in saltanati, §ahsiyeti ve
firari.* (In T.D. iv. 1342.) Istanbul, 1952.
‘Alemdar Mustafa Pa§a kimdi, ne yapmak istiyordu, ne yapabildi ve ne
oldu?’ (In R.T.M. iv. 2565.) Istanbul, 1953.
Shay, M. L. The Ottoman Empire , 2720-/734, as revealed in despatches of the
Venetian Baili. Urbana, Illinois, 1944.
Shirley, A. Sir Anthony Shirley and his Persian Adventures . (Edited by Ross,
Sir D.) London, 1933.
Shirley, T. Discours of the Turkes. (Edited by Ross, Sir D.) London, 1936.
Simsar, M. A. Vakfiye Ahmed Pa$a. Philadelphia, 1940.
SiRER, M. ‘Veladeti Humayun ve Be§ik Alaylari/ (In R.T.M. iv. 2433.)
Istanbul, 1953.
Sumer, F. ‘Kanuni Suleyman’m Talihsiz Oglu §ehzade Bayezid ve acikli
serguze§ti.’ (In R.T.M. iii. 1321.) Istanbul, 1952.
‘Kanuni’nin Oglu $ehzade Mustafa’yi Bogdurtu?u.’ (In R.T.M. iii.
1519.) Istanbul, 1952.
‘Osmanlilann Kavmi Men$eleri.’ (In R.T.M. v. 3077.) Istanbul, 1954.
Surreya, M. Sicill-i Osmani. 4. vols. Istanbul, 1308 [1892].
§akir, Z. ‘Enver Pa§a ile Naciye Sultan nasil evlendiler?’ (In R.T.M. \. 376.)
Istanbul, 1950.
‘Ikinci Sultan AbdtilhamkTin son gunleri.* (In R.T.M. i. 562, &c.)
Istanbul, 1950.
§ehsuvaro 6 lu, H, Y. Sultan Aziz. Istanbul, 1949. (Cited as Aziz.)
‘Murad Efendi bir Ingiliz Prensesi ile evlendirilecekti.’ (In R.T.M. i.
21 1.) Istanbul, 1950.
‘Osmanli Padi^ahlannm K1I19 Ku§anma Merasimi.’ (In R.T.M. i. 270.)
Istanbul, 1950.
137
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
§ehsuvaroglu, H. Y. ‘Padi?ah Mehmed Vahdeddin’in Hayati ve Firari.’
(In R.T.M. i. 404.) Istanbul, 1950. _ .. s t , ,
, Osmanli Sarayinin bir muhtesem diigunu.’ (In R.T.M. ii. 673). Istanbul,
1951.
‘Ikind Abdulhamid’in Kadinlari ve £ocuklari.’ (In R.T.M. ii. 7 2 °-)
Istanbul, 1951.
c Sultan Medd’in Kiiguk Kizi Fatma Sultan.’ (In R.T.M. 11. 115 0 *)
Istanbul, 1951.
‘Atiye Sultan.’ (In R.T.M. iii. 1200.) Istanbul, 195 2 *
‘Adile Sultan.’ (In R.T.M. iii. 1260.) Istanbul, I 95 2 *
‘Damad Ferid Pasa.’ (In R.T.M. iii. 1392.) Istanbul, 1952.
‘Dorduncii Mustafa’nin Idami.’ (In R.T.M. iv. 1964.) Istanbul, 1953.
‘Bezmialem Valide Sultan.’ (In R.T.M. iv. 2098.) Istanbul, 1953.
Taeschner, F. ‘War Murad I Grossmeister oder Mitglied des Achibundes?’
(In Oriens, VI. i. 23.) Leiden, 1953-
Tafur, P. Travels and Adventures , I 435 ~ 39 • (Edited by Letts, M.) London,
1926.
Talu, E. E. ‘Ikinci Sultan Abdulhamid Gozdesi Fehim Pasa.’ (In R.T.M. iv.
2661.) Istanbul, 1953.
Tani§ik, I. H. Istanbid Qe$meleri. (2 vols.) Istanbul, 1943-5.
Tankut, H. R. ‘Alp Kelimesi ve Alpm Irkm Yurdu.’ (In Belleten y 1. 26.)
Ankara, 1937.
Tarih Dunyasi. Istanbul, 1950, &c. (Cited as T.D.)
Tarih Dunyast dzel: 1. Fatih. Istanbul, 1950.
2. Selim III ve Alemdar Mustafa Pa§a. Istanbul, i95°-
3. A$ik ve $air Padi§ahlar. Istanbul, i95°-
Tarih-i Osmarii Enciimeni Mecmuast. Number 14, Appendix 27. For the
‘Kanunname-i Al-i Osman’ of Mehmed II. Istanbul, 1912. (Cited as
T.O.E.M.)
Tarih Vesikalan. Istanbul, 1941.
Top-Kapi Sarayi MiXzesi. Ar§iv Kilavuzu. Fasc. 1. Istanbul, 1938-
Toynbee, A. J. A Study of History. (Edited by Somervell, D. C.) London,
1946.
Tt'LBENT£i, F. F. Osmanogullan. Istanbul, 195°-
‘Sultan Abdiilaziz ve Prenses Tevhide.’ (In R.T.M. ii. 1133.) Istanbul,
1951.
Turk Tarih , Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi. Istanbul, 1933, See. (Cited as
T.T.A.E.)
Turk TarihI Kurumu. Belleten. (A quarterly journal). Ankara, 1937, Sc c.
— Histoire de la Re'publique Turque. Istanbul, 1935- (Cited as T.T.K.)
Ulu^ay, M. g. ‘Sultan Ibrahim Deli mi, Hasta miydi?’ (In T.D . i. 242, &c.)
Istanbul, 1950, See.
Osmanli Sultanlanna A$k Mektuplan. Istanbul, 1950.
‘Haremden Mektuplar.’ (In Y.T.D. i. 27, Sec.) Istanbul, 1953*
‘Behind Murad’m Mektuplan.’ (In T.D. iii. 1039.) Istanbul, I 95 1 *
‘Fatih, Mahmut Pa§a’yi neden oldiirttu?’ (In T.D. iv. 1373-) Istanbul,
1952.
‘Haremden Mektuplar.’ (In Y.T.D. i, &c.) Istanbul, 1953*
1. ‘Celebi Sultan Mehmed’in kizi Selsuk Sultamn Mektuplan.* {Y.T.D.
i. 130.)
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
138
2. ‘Giilbahar Sultan’m II Bayezid’e Mektuplan.’ {Y.T.D. i. 162.)
3. ‘II BayezicTin Karisma Yazilan Mektup.’ {Y.T.D. i. 207, 250.)
4. ‘II BayezicTin Harem ve Sefahat Alemleri.’ {Y.T.D. i. 284.)
5. ‘II BayezicTin kizi Ayse Sultan’m Mektubu.’ {Y.T.D. i. 338.)
6. ‘II BayezicTin kizi Fatma Sultan’in kocasi <?apkin miydi?* {Y.T.D. ii. 418.)
7. ‘Sultanlardan rii^vet almiyordu mu?’ {Y.T.D. ii. 456.)
8. ‘II Bayezid’in kizi Hundi Sultan’in konaklanna neden yakmak istiyor-
lardi? 5 (Y.T.D. ii. 501.)
9. ‘Yavuz Sultan Selim’e Ciilus Tebriki.’ {Y.T.D. ii. 580, 617, 663.)
Unat, F. R. Hicri Tarihleri Miladi Tarihe Qevirme Kilavuzu. Istanbul, 1943.
Tarih Atlast. Istanbul, 1952.
‘Fatih Kag Defa Padi^ah oldu?’ (In R.T.M. iv. 2277.) Istanbul, 1953.
UzuN£AR§iLI, I. H. Anadolu Beylikleri. Ankara, 1937.
‘Veliaht Selim’in Onaltinci Loui ile Muhabereleri.’ (In Belleten , 5-6.
191.) Ankara, 1938.
‘Osmanhlarda ilk vezirlere dair miitalea.’ (In Belleten , 9. 99.) Ankara, 1939.
‘Gazi Orhan Bey’in Vakfiyesi.’ (In Belleten , 19. 277.) Ankara, 1941.
‘Ali Suavi ve (Jiragan Sarayi vakasi.’ (In Belleten, 29. 71.) Ankara, 1944.
‘Besinci Muradi tekrar padi§ah yapmak istiyen . . . komitesi.’ (In Belleten ,
30. 245.) Ankara, 1944.
‘Doktor Mehmed Emin Pa$a.’ (In Belleten, 30. 329,) Ankara, 1944.
‘Behind Murad ile oglu Selaheddin Efendi’yi ka^irmak i<pn kadin kiya-
fetinde £iragan’a girmek istiyen sahislar.’ (In Belleten, 32. 589.) Ankara,
I944 *
Osmanh Devletinin Saray Te§kilati . Ankara, 1945.
‘Gazi Orhan Bey’in hukiimdar oldugu tarih ve ilk sikkesi.’ (In Belleten ,
34. 207.) Ankara, 1945.
‘Sultan Murad V’nin tedavisine ve olumune ait rapor ve mektuplar.’ (In
Belleten , 38. 317.) Ankara, 1946.
‘Ikinci Sultan Abdiilhamid’in HaTi ve olumune dair bazi vesikalar/ (In
Belleten, 40. 705.) Ankara, 1946.
Osmanh Tarihi. I. Kurulu^tan Istanbul Fethine kadar. Ankara 1947.
(Cited as O.T. I.)
Osmanh Tarihi. II. Istanbul Fethinden Kanun Sultani Stileyman’in
olumune kadar. Ankara, 1949. (Cited as O.T. II.)
Osmanh Tarihi. III. i. Ikind Selim’in Tahta Ciki?indan Karlova
Andla$masina kadar. Ankara, 1951. (Cited as O.T. III. i.)
‘Midhat Pa§a — Sultan Aziz.’ (In T.D. iii. 1035, &c.) Istanbul, 1951.
‘Fatih Sultan Mehmed ve Qandarli Halil Pa§a.’ (In R.T.M. iv. 2316.)
Istanbul, 1953.
Olkuta§ir, M. S.^ ‘Sinop’ta Candarogullan Zamamna ait tarihi eserler.’ (In
Turk Tarih , Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi , v. 152,) Istanbul, 1949.
Onver, A. S. Fatih Sultan Mehmed' in Oliimii — Testament de Amyra Sultan
Nichemedy. Istanbul, 1952.
Vakif Dergisi, i, ii. Ankara, 1938 and 1942. (Cited as V.D.)
Withers, R. ‘A Description of the Grant Seigneur’s Seraglio, or Turkish
Emperor’s Court.’ (In Purchas.)
Witter, P. The Rise of the Ottoman Empire. London, 1938.
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
i39
Witter, P. ‘Deux Chapitres de Phistoire des Turcs de Roum.’ (In Byzantion ,
xi. 293.) Louvain, 1941.
‘Ankara Bozgunundan Istanbul’un Zaptina.* (In Belleten , 27. 557-)
Ankara, 1943.
— ■ — Mente§e Beyligi. 1 3— 1 51 nci astrda Garbi Kiifiik Asya Tarihine ait tetkik.
(Translated by Gokyay, O. §.) Ankara, 1944.
‘Notes sur la “Tughra” ottomane/ (In Byzantion , xviii, 311.) Louvain,
1948.
Wittlin, A. Abdul Hamid . The Shadozv of God. (Translated by Denny, N.)
London, 1940.
Wright, W. L. Ottoman Statecraft. Princeton, 1935.
YelkIn, R. ‘Son Halife Abdulmecid ve Hanedam Ali Osman IstanbuPdan
nasil ^ikarildi/ (In T.D. i. 22.) Istanbul, 1950.
Yeni Tarih Dilnyasi. Istanbul, 1953, &c. (Cited as Y.T.D.)
Young, G. Constantinople . London (no date).
Zakynthos, D. A. Le Despotat Grec (de la Moree). I. Paris, 1932.
Zambaur, E. de. Manuel de Genealogie et de Chronologie pour VHistoire de
V Islam. Hanover, 1927.
ADDENDA TO SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Encyclopedia of Islam (new edition). (Edited by Kramers, Gibb and Levi-
Provencal, etc.) Leiden and London, 1954.
Ertaylan, I. H. Sultan Cem. Istanbul, 1951.
Giz, A. ‘Hafsa Hatun’un Mektuplari/ (In T.D. ii. 768.) Istanbul, 1950.
KerImoglu, F. ‘Son Halifenin Son Gunleri.’ (In R.T.M. vi. 3603.) Istanbul,
2955-
Lewis, B. ‘The Privilege granted by Mehmed II to his Physician/ (In Bulletin
of School of Oriental and African Studies , XIV. iii. 550.) London, 1952.
M., S. ‘Ikinci Mahmud’un annesi, Nak§idil Valide Sultan, Fransiz degildir/
(In R.T.M. vi. 3816.) Istanbul, 1955.
Orik, N. S. ‘Yildiz ve Kahire Saraylari arasmda iki izdivag tasawurunu.’ (In
Y.T.D. ii. 780.) Istanbul, 1954.
Rossi, E. ‘La Sultan Nvirbanu (Cecilia Venier-Baffo), moglie di Selim lie
madre di Murad III.’ (In Oriente Moderno .) Rome, 1953.
§ehsuvaroglu, H. Y. ‘Sultan Ikinci Abdulhamid.’(In R.T.M. vi. 3628, &c.)
Istanbul, 1955.
ULugAY, Q. ‘Haremden Mektuplar/ (In Y.T.D. ii.) Istanbul, 1954.
10. ‘Bali Bey’in kansi fahi?e miydi?’ (Y.T.D. ii. 698.)
11. ‘Hafsa Sultan’in Mektuplan/ (Y.T.D. ii. 732.)
Uzun£ar§ili, I. H. ‘Onbe^inci yuzyilin ilk yansiyle onaltinci yuzyilin ba§lannda
Memluk Sultanlan Yanina Iltica Etmi§ Olan Osmanli Hanedanma Mensub
?ehzadeler.’ (In Belleten , 68. 519.) Ankara, 1953.
“ Veliaht Yusuf Izzeddin Efendinin Intihan.’ (In R.T.M. v. 3150.) Istan-
bul, 1954.
INDEX
N.B. A name, with number, in brackets indicates the father or mother. For any particular
name, wives, sons, or daughters are given first, followed by other persons, each group
chronologically. Roman numerals refer to Genealogical Tables.
2565 /Abbas I, Khedive (Egypt), xlvii.
2420/Abdi, Koca, xli.
580/Abdullah (8/Bayezid II), 22, 23 n.,
XXVII, XXVIII.
590/Abdullah (9/Selim I), 30, XXIX.
600/Abdullah (10/Slileyman I), xxx.
610/Abdullah (11/Selim II), 31, xxxi.
620/Abdullah (12/Murad III), 31,
XXXII.
730/Abdullah (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
770/Abdullah (27/Abdiilhamid I), XLIV.
800/Abdullah (30/Mahmud II), XLVI.
1 730/ Abdullah, xxvi.
1 748 /Abdullah, xxvn.
2090/Abdullah (601/Bayezid), 31, xxx.
2340/Abdullah (1202/Hadice), 103 n.,
XXXVIII.
2365/Abdullah, Muhassil, 1 17, xl.
240o/Abdullah, Muhsinzade, xli.
Abdullah, Buhara Meliki, 7 n.
77 1 /Abdurrahim (27/Abdiilhamid I), 122,
XLIV.
860/Abdurrahim (34/AbdUlhamid II),
XLVII, L.
62 1 /Abdurrahman (12/Murad III), 31,
XXXII.
208 5 /Abdurrahman, xxx.
2131/Abdurrahman (2130/Ahmed), xxx.
2181/Abdurrahman, xxxi.
247 1 /Abdurrahman, Sufi, XLili.
2685/Abdurrahman Nureddin, L.
32/Abdiilaziz, Sultan, 12, 13, 16, 21, 35,
36 , 45 , 48, 52, 69, 74, 75, 76, 81 n.,
82, 83, 89, 105, 107, no, 129, 130,
XLVI, XLVIII, LIII.
772/AbduIaziz (27/Abdiilhamid I), 122,
XLIV.
2529/Abdiilhalim (833/Siileyman), XLVII.
Abdiilhalim, 13 n.
27/Abdiilhamid I, Sultan, 12, 33, 34, 35,
36, 43 n., 45, 48, 67, 80 n., 83, 91 n.,
96 n., 105, no, 121, 129, 130, xli,
XLIV, XLV, XLVI.
34/Abdulhamid II, Sultan, 13, 29, 36,
45 , 52 , 53 , 70-71, 75 n., 76, 81 n., 82,
83, 95 n -, 96 n., 102, 104 n., 105, 106,
109 n., no, in, 113, 116, 124, 129,
130, XLVII, L.
801/Abdiilhamid (A), (30/Mahmud II),
XLVI.
802/AbdUlhamid (B.), (30/Mahmud II),
XLVI.
2511/Abdiilhamid (2510/Mehmed Halil),
XLVI.
861/Abdlilkadir (34/xA.bdiilhamid II), l6,
L.
31/Abdiilmecid I, Sultan, 12, 16, 21, 35,
45, 59, 69, 81 n., 83, 98 n., 101,
102 n., 105, 106, no, 113, 114 n.,
129, 130, XLVI, XLVII, XLIX, L, LI, LII.
37/Abdiilmecid (II), Caliph, 4, 16, 36, 42,
45 , 58, 69, 73 “74, 75 n., 76, 83, 89, 105,
109, no, 116, 129, 130, XLVIII, LIII.
731/Abdiilmecid (23/Ahmed III), 106,
XLI.
2619/AbdiiImecid, Emir §erif (2618/
Ali), xlix.
732/Abdiilmelek (23 /.Ahmed III), 106,
XLI.
20 i 5 /Abdiilmu > in, xxix.
2057 /Abdulmu’in, xxix.
Abdiilmiinim (Abbas Hilmi), Lin n.
1150/Abide (14/Ahmed I), xxxiv.
2346/Abide, XXXVIII, LIX.
1671/Abubekir, XXIV.
I 33o/Adile (30/Mahmud II), xlvi.
2691/Adile (2690/Mehmed), XLVIII, L.
3io/Adil§ah, xliii.
240/Afife, XXXVIII.
2270/Afife (2243 /Ahmed), xxxvi.
340/Afitab, XLV.
Ahiler, 2, 5 n., 9, 123.
14/Ahmed I, Sultan, 10, 11, 21, 29, 31,
33 n., 42, 44, 45, 48, 63, 83, 103,
io 4> 105, no, 113, 123, 124, 129,
130, XXXIII, XXXIV, xxxv, xxxvi,
xxxvii.
21/Ahmed II, Sultan, 34, 36, 41 n., 45,
66, 83, 1 o 1 , 105, 106, 108 n., no,
129, 130, xxxvii, xxxix.
23/Ahmed III, Sultan, 12, 31, 34, 36,
40 n., 41 n., 43 n., 45, 66-67, 7 6, 83,
IOI > io 3> 105, 106, no, 121, 129,
130, XXXVIII, XLI, XLIII, XLIV, XLV.
550/Ahmed (5/Mehmed I), 22, 27, 30,
XXV.
INDEX
560/Ahmed (A), Buyiik (6/Murad II), 7,
22, 56, XXVI.
561/Ahmed (B), Kii^iik (6/Murad II), 28,
30, XXVI, LIV.
581/Ahmed (8/Bayezid II), 22, 24, 30, 51,
57, 58, 62, XXVII, XXVIII, LXII.
622/Ahmed (12/Murad III), XXXII.
680/Ahmed (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
720/Ahmed (A), (22/Mustafa II), XL.
721 /Ahmed (B), (22/Mustafa II), XL.
773 /Ahmed (27/Abdulhamid I), xliv.
803/Ahmed (A), (30/Mahmud II), XLVI.
804/Ahmed (B), (30/Mahmud II), XLVI.
805/Ahmed (C), (30/Mahmud II), XLVI.
806/Ahmed (D), (30/Mahmud II), XLVI.
807/Ahmed (E), (30/Mahmud II), XLVI.
820/Ahmed (31/Abdulmecid I), XLVII.
82 1 /Ahmed Kemaleddin (31/Abdtil-
mecid I), xlvii.
862/Ahmed Nureddin (34/Abdiilhamid
II), 106, L.
863/Ahmed Nuri (34/Abdiilhamid II), L.
1520/Ahmed (507/S.), XXI.
1 635 /Ahmed Celayir, xxiv.
1 683 /Ahmed, $adgeldi, xxv.
1693/Ahmed Candaroglu, Kizil, 117,
xxv, LIV.
1711/Ahmed Karaman, Pir, xxv, LVII.
1732/Ahmed Qelebi (1731/Mehmed),
XXVI.
1797/Ahmed, Gode (1796/Mehmed),
XXVII.
1964/Ahmed Dukaginzade, xxvm, xxix.
1966/Ahmed (1965/Mehmed), xxvm.
1976/Ahmed Hersekoglu (1974/Stephen
Vukchich), 88, xxvm.
1983/Ahmed, xxvm.
1995/Ahmed, §emsi (1694/Mehmed),
xxvm, LIV.
2005/Ahmed (2004/Yahya), xxvm.
2030/Ahmed, Kara, xxix.
2066/Ahmed (2065/Saadet), xxix, LVIII.
2129/Ahmed, Semiz, 118, xxx.
2 1 30/ Ahmed Feridun, xxx.
2193/Ahmed, Cuhadar, xxxii.
2202 /Ahmed, Mirahor, xxxii.
2227 /Ahmed, Haleb, xxxiv.
2228/ Ahmed, Hafiz, 115, xxxiv.
2229/Ahmed, Voynuk, 120, xxxiv.
22 43 /Ahmed, Melek (2242/Ozbey), 98,
1 17, 1 19, xxxiv, xxxvi.
2292/Ahmed, Muid, 91 n., 1 17, xxxvi 1.
2311/Ahmed, Hezarpare (2310/Mustafa),
1 *6, 1 19, xxxvii.
2 3 2 5 /Ahmed, Abaza, xxxvii.
2381/Ahmed, Kel, 116, xl.
141
2389/Ahmed, Giil Ratib (2388/Osman),
1 14, xli.
2390/Ahmed Kapudan, xli.
23 96/ Ahmed RiFat (2395/Mehmed), xli.
2416/Ahmed, Hafiz (2415/Osman), 1 1 5,
XLI.
2430/Ahmed (2427/ Mustafa), 103 n., xli.
2441/Ahmed (2440/Osman), xli.
246 1 /Ahmed, Seyyid, 118, xliii.
2476/Ahmed Nazif (2475/Selim), xliv.
2480/ Ahmed Muhtar (2479 /Mahmud),
91 n., 1 17, xliv.
2487/Ahmed Rif’at (2486/Gani), xlvi.
2495 /Ahmed, Radosi, xlvi.
2497/Ahmed Fethi, Radosizade (2495/
Ahmed), 98 n., xlvi.
25 33 /Ahmed, xlvii.
2582/Ahmed Tevhid (842/Mehmed), 106,
XL vm.
2597/Ahmed $ukru, xlviii.
2604/Ahmed Ziilkufl (26o3/tsmail), 117,
xlviii.
2678/Ahmed Naimi, Beyrutlu (2677 /
Fahreddin), L.
2694/Ahmed Eyiib, l.
2720/Ahmed Tevfik, Krimhanzade, LII.
Ahmed, Senusi $eyh Seyyid, 45.
Ahtermelek Hamm, 44 n.
Aim£e Dubuc de Riv£ry ( see Dubuc).
1 10/Akide, xxvii.
Ak Koyunlular, 87.
Ak§ehir, 23, 108 n.
46/Aktimur (45/Giindiiz Alp), 1 12, xx.
1900/Alaeddevlet Bozkurt, Dulkadir,
xxvm, lvi.
501/Alaeddin Ali (i/Osman I), 7, 17, 22,
XXI.
562/Alaeddin Ali (6/Murad II), 7, 22, 30,
56, XXVI.
623/Alaeddin Davud (12/Murad III), 31,
XXXII.
681 /Alaeddin (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
1579/Alaeddin Halil, Karaman, xxiii,
LVII.
1580/Alaeddin Ali, Karaman (1579 /
Alaeddin Halil), 86, xxiii, xxv, lvii.
1581/Alaeddin Ali, Bengi, Karaman
(1580/Alaeddin Ali), xxiii, lvii.
1 706/ Alaeddin, Karaman, xxv, lvii.
1910/Alaeddin Ali (581/Ahmed), xxvm.
1955/Alaeddin (586/$ahin§ah), 30, xxvm.
2462/Alaeddin (2461/Ahmed), xliii, xliv.
Alaeddin Pa§a, 17, xxin.
582/Alem§ah (8/Bayezid II), 21 n., 23, 30,
XXVIII.
624/AIem§ah (i 2/Murad III), 31, xxxii.
142
INDEX
774/Alem$ah (27/Abdiilhamid I), xliv.
I95i/Alem§ah (585/Mehmed), xxvm.
625 /Ali (12/Murad III), 31, XXXII.
733/Ali (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
1660/Ali-iil Hliseyni-ul Bohara, xxiv.
1 662/ Ali, xxiv.
1715/Ali, Karaman, 20 n., xxv, lvii.
1977/Ali (1976/ Ahmed), xxvm.
2071/Ali, XXIX.
2160/Ali, Kalayhkoz, 116, xxxi.
2 1 67 /Ali (2166/Mehmed), xxxi.
2210/Ali, xxxm.
2236/Ali, xxxiv.
2257/Ali, §ehit, xxxiv.
2341 /Ali (1202/Hadice), 103 n., xxxvm.
2348/Ali, Maktulzade (2347/Mustafa),
xxxvm, XL, LIX.
2366/Ali, Qorlulu, 89, xl.
2382/Ali, Haci (2381/Ahmed), XL.
23 84/ Ali, Diyarbekirli, xl.
2404/Ali, Komurcii (2403/Huseyin), 117,
XLI.
2405/Ali, aga, xli.
2417/Ali, XLI.
242 1 /Ali, Sarho§ (2420/ Abdi), 114, 118,
XLI.
2442/Ali, Gen9 Nev§ehirli (2407/Halil),
XLI,
2489/Ali Riza, I^kodrahzade (2488/Mus-
tafa), XLVI.
2554/Ali Galib (2553/Mustafa Re§id),
98 n., xlvi 1.
2601/Ali Halid (26oo/Dervi§), xlviii.
2618/Ali Hayder, §erif, 42, 73, 74, xlix.
2623/Ali Galib, xlix.
2689/Ali Nureddin (2687/Osman), L.
2695/AIi Fuad (2694/Ahmed), L.
2698/Ali Namik, L.
2723/Ali Haydar, Germiyanoglu (2722/
Ismail), Lll.
Ali, Qandarhzade, 61.
Ali, Hekimoglu, 81 n.
Ali, Sidi, 1 12 n.
Ali Suavi, 29 n.
260/Alicenab, XL.
359/Alicenab, XLVI.
1350/AIiye (31/Abdiilmecid I), XL VII.
1390/Aliye (33/Murad V), XLIX.
2641/Aliye, L.
Allatini, Villa, 36, 71, 75 n.
Allegiance, Oath of (see Biat).
Alplar, 2, 1 12.
Amasya, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 39, 46, 105,
125.
Anatolia, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 37, 54, 55,
61, 62, 72, 86, 90, 97.
80/ Angelina, xxiv.
Ankara, Battle of, 6, 22, 24, 29, 38, 49,
50, 60, 86, 93, 121, xxiv n.
m/Anna (A), (1740/David Comnenus),
87, XXVI, XXVII, LV.
112/Anna (B), (1745/Paolo Erizzo), 25 n.,
87, XXVII.
261/Anna Sophia, von Wippach, XL.
Antalya (Teke), 22, 23.
2555/Arif, XLVII.
2686/Arif Hikmet (2685 /Abdurrahman),
L.
1210/Asiye (2 1 /Ahmed II), xxxix.
2342/Asif (1202/Hadice), 103 n., xxxvm.
6o/Aspor£a, xxn.
Assembly, Grand National, 72, 74.
36o/A§ubucan, xlvi.
Atatiirk ( see Mustafa Kemal).
1151/Atike (Bumaz) (14/Ahmed I),
xxxiv.
1190/Atike (18/ Ibrahim), xxxvn.
1211/Atike (2 1 /Ahmed II), xxxix.
1240/Atike (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
1331/Atiye (30/Mahmud II), 98 n., xlvi.
2477/Atiyetullah (2476/ Ahmed), 91 n.,
XLIV.
2101 /Aya, xxx.
Ayas, xxix n.
48/Aydogdu Alp (45/GUnduz Alp), 17 n.,
24, xx.
1073/Ayn^ah (8/Bayezid II) (see Hadice
Aym§ah).
i3oo/Aym§ah (27/Abdiilhamid I), xliv.
i979/Aym§ah (1976/Ahmed), xxvm.
3 1 1 /Ayniilhayat, xliii.
i3o/Ay§e, Dulkadirli, 83, 92, 94, xxvm,
xxix, LVI.
i4o/Ay$e, Giray (1950/Menkili), 88, 94,
xxvm, xxix, LViii.
27o/Ay§e, Buhari, Hace, 125, xli.
29o/Ay§e, Hace, 125, xlii.
32o/Ay§e (A), xliv.
32i/Ay§e (B), xliv.
322/Ay§e Seniyeperver, 83, xliv, xlv.
io6o/Ay$e (7/Mehmed II), xxvn.
io7o/Ay§e (8/Bayezid II), xxvm.
ii2o/Ay$e (12/Murad III), xxxii.
ii52/Ay§e (14/Ahmed I), 97 n., xxxiv.
ii7o/Ay§e (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
ii9i/Ay§e (i8/tbrahim), xxxvi 1.
i22o/Ay$e (22/Mustafa II), xl, lix.
i24i/Ay§e (23/Ahmed III), xli.
i3oi/Ay?e (27/Abdulhamid I), xliv.
i332/Ay§e (30/Mahmud II), xlvi.
i40i/Ay$e (34/Abdulhamid II), l.
I5i6/Ay§e, hatun, xxi.
INDEX
i 43
i926/Ay?e (582/Alem§ah), xxvin.
i94i/Ay§e (584/Mahmud), xxvni.
2097/Ay§e (601/Bayezid), xxx.
2276/Ay?e (2275/Ibrahim), xxxvi.
243i/Ay§e (1259/Saliha), xli.
2525/ Ay§e Tarzender, XLVii.
2534/Ay§e, xlvii.
Bagdad, 43 n.
Bahadur, llhan, 2 n.
822/Bahaeddin (3 1 /Abdiilmecid I), xlvii.
2710/Bahter, LI.
2312/Baki (231 1 /Ahmed), xxxvn.
55/Bala (Rabia), 86, 101, XXI.
1508/Balad, XXI.
1982/Bali, Antalyali, xxvin.
2006/Bali (2004/Yahya), xxvin.
Balikesir (Karesi), 22, 23.
1 975 /Barbara de Landshut, xxvni.
1549/Barsbay Beca^i, xxiv, lx.
1521/Bayat, xxi.
4/Bayezid I, Sultan, 6, 7, 8 n., 9, 16, 22,
2 4> 28, 30, 38, 44, 45, 49, 50, 76, 85,
86, 90 n., 92, 93, 101 , 105, 107, 108 n.,
114, 120, 12 1 , 122, 129, 130, xxi n.,
XXIII, XXIV, XXV, LIV, LVI, LVII, LX,
LX I, LXIII.
8/Bayezid II, Sultan, 6, 7, 8 n., 10, 15,
18 n., 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
30, 38, 39, 4E 43 n., 44, 45, 46, 47,
54, 57, 58, 62, 63, 75, 76, 83, 88,
92, 94, 97 n., 104, 105, 107, 1 10, hi,
112, 118, 119, 125, 129, 130, XXVII,
XXVIII, XXIX, LIV, LVI, LVII, LXII.
6oi/Bayezid (lo/Suleyman I), 14, 22, 24,
28, 31, 52, 83, XXX.
626/Bayezid (12/Murad III), 31, XXXII.
660/Bayezid (14/Ahmed I), 31, 34 n.,
XXXIV.
690/Bayezid (18/Ibrahim), XXXVII.
700/Bayezid (19/Mehmed IV), xxxviii.
734/Bayezid (23/Ahmed III), 34 n., xli.
808/Bayezid (30/Mahmud II), XLVI,
J 555 /Bayezid, Koturiim Celaleddin, Can-
daroglu, 8n., xxn, liv.
2371/Bayezid (2348/Ali), 103 n., xl, lix.
5 o/Bayhoca, §ehit (49/Sarubati Savci),
24, XX.
2254/Bayram (2253/Kurt), XXXIV.
^Si/Bedihe (31 /Abdiilmecid I), xlvii.
Bedreddin, Simavna, 55, 61, 121.
420/Bedrifelek, L.
421/Behice (Behiye), 106, l.
I 35 2 /Behice (31 /Abdiilmecid I), XLVII.
1 353/Behiye (31 /Abdiilmecid I), XLVII.
261 5/Behiye (850/Mehmed), 89, xlix.
460/Behrus, LIII.
Bektashi Dervishes, 42.
Belgrade, 39, 44.
1192/Beyhan (Bib i) (18/ibrahim), xxxvii.
1290/Beyhan (26/Mustafa III), XLIII.
Beylerbeyi (Governor-general), 17, x8, 111.
Beylerbeyi Sarayi, 36, 71, 75 n.
323/Beynaz, XLIV.
379/Bezmi, XLVII.
361/Bezmialem, 81 n., 83, XLVI, XLVII.
Biat (Allegiance), 9, 40.
Bilecik, 22, XXII n.
61/Bilun, xxn.
Birth Control, 12, 13, 34, 65, 68, 99,
101-4.
422/Biydar, L.
Bolu, 19, 22, 23.
1561/Braide, Bassaraba, xxm.
Buda(-pesth), 24.
Bursa, Hudavendigar, 4, 19, 22, 23, 30,
38, 39, 41, 44, 45, 47, 49, 50, 54, 56,
77, 102 n., 105, 108 n., 109, 1 16.
131/Bulbiil, XXVIII.
1786/Bulbul (5 7 1 /Mustafa), xxvii, xxvin.
Buyukdere, 79.
Byzantium (Emp. of), 1, 2, 49, 50, 86.
2173/Cafer, XXXI.
2195/Cafer, XXXII.
2295/Cafer, XXXVII.
Cafer Qelebi, Tacizade, xxix n.
Cafer (Jelebi, 87.
Cairo, 125.
2607/Calefer, XLIX.
Caliph (Halife), 16, 59, 73, 74, 112, 1 14,
115, 126.
Candarogullan (Kizil Ahmedliler), 5 n.,
15, 20 n., 50, 86, 90, xxvin n., liv.
2590/Cavidan, xlvii 1.
1 665 /Celaleddin Islam, xxiv.
1670/CelaIeddin Miran^ah, xxiv.
2490/Celaleddin (2489/Ali), XLVI.
Celaleddin Rumi, Mevlana, xxiv n.
570/Cem (7/Mehmed II), 6, 7, io, 18 n.,
20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 30, 38, 39, 47,
51, 57, 87, 88, 97 n., 109 n., 125,
xxvii, LX.
I 775/Cem (1774/Murad), 30, xxvii.
Cemal, pa$a, 53.
2688/Cemaleddin (2687/Osman), L.
I 354/Cemile (3 1 /Abdiilmecid I), xlvii.
Cemiyet-i Mehmediye (Muhammedan
League), 71.
410/Cenamyar, xlix.
380/Ceylangar, xlvii.
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, 54.
INDEX
144
602/Cihangir (10/ Suleyman I), 23, 24,
108 n., 1 14, xxx.
61 i/Cihangir (11 /Selim II), 31, xxxi.
627/Cihangir (A), (12/Murad III),
XXXII.
628/Cihangir (B), (12/Murad III), 31,
XXXII.
650/Cihangir (13/Mehmed III), XXXIII.
691/Cihangir (18 / tbrahim), 34 n.,
XXXVII.
Cilicia, 24.
Committee of Union and Progress ( see
tttihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti).
1 5 65 /Constantine, of Kostendil, xxiil,
XXIV.
Constantinople (Byzantium), 46, 49, 79,
109, inn.
Constitution of 1876, 11 n., 70, 71, 96 n.,
119.
Cuius Ak9asi (Accession Money), 43.
(paldiran, Battle of, 51, 87, xxix n.
Camurlu, Battle of, 6 n.
Candarlilar, 17, 19.
Cankin, 23.
1 13/Qigek, xxvn.
Cingiz Han, 15.
Ciragan Sarayi, 36, 70, 75 n.
502/Coban (i/Osman I), 122, XXI.
Coban, llhan Emiri, 122.
Corlu, no.
Corum, 23.
Dalai Lama (Tibet), 108 n.
Dallam, Thomas, 32.
Damad (Son-in-law), 89, 91, 97, 103 n.,
hi, 113.
Dardanelles, 55.
Dar-ul Harb, 19, in, 114.
Dar-ul Islam, 1 n., 4, 19.
1742/David Comnenus, xxvn, lv.
1573/DSvud, XXIII.
1961/Davud, xxvm.
1992/Ddvud, Kara Ni$anci, xxvni.
2212/Davud, Kara, 64, xxxm.
Death of Sultans, 6, 37, 107 ft., xxv n.
1750/Demetrius Paleologus, xxvn, LXI.
Demirta§, C°banogIu, 2 n.
Democracy, spirit of, intro, i, 8, n, 38,
59, 72-
2007/Dervi$ (2006/Bali), xx\ r m.
26oo/Dervi$, Ibrahim, xlviii.
81/Despina (1590/Lazar I), 85, 86, 92,
93, 101, 122, xxiv, xxv, LXIII.
82/Devlet$ah (1595 /Suleyman Germi-
yanoglu), 83, 90 n., 92, 94, 101,
XXIV, xxv.
Devr-i Fetret (Great Interregnum), 4, 6,
7, 16, 20, 27, 30, 38, 49, 50, 77, 86,
114, xxv n.
26o8/Dilber$an, xlix.
423/Dilpesend, L.
350/Dilpezir, XLV.
Dimetoka, 57, 63, 75, ioon., 105, 107, 1 10.
Diocletian, Roman Emperor, 54.
Divan, 79, 81 n.
Dolmabahfe Sarayi, 79.
Domanig, Battle of, 17 n., 24.
1750/Dorino I, Gattilusio, xxvii, lv.
Dubuc de Riv£ry, Aimee, 87 n., xliv n.
Dulkadirlilar, 15, 86, 87, 90, lvi.
42/Dundar (A), (40/Suleyman $ah), 5,
10, 28, 30, xx.
43/Dundar (B), (42/Diindar), xx.
Diindar, Hamidoglu, 122.
440/Durradem, LI.
400/Durriinev, XLVIII.
i302/Diirru§ehvar (27/Abdiilhamid I),
33 n., 112, XLIV.
i44o/Diirru$ehvar (37/Abdlilmecid II),
89, LIII.
381/Duzdiidil, XLVII.
72/D. (1540/John V Paleologus), xxm,
LXI.
73/D. (1556/Suleyman II Candaroglu),
XXIII, LIV.
74/D. (Balsha), xxm.
75 /D. (1565 /Constantine of Kostendil),
xxm.
76/D. (1570/Seyyid Sultan), xxm.
86/D. (1565 /Constantine of Kostendil),
xxiv.
87/D. (1540/John V Paleologus), xxiv,
LXI.
104/D. (Balsha), xxvi.
122/D. (1705/Ibrahim Karamanoglu),
xxv, xxvii, lvi 1.
123/D. (1753/Dorino I Gattilusio),
xxvn, LV.
124/D. (1709/Mehmed Karamanoglu),
xxv, xxvii, lvi 1.
125/D. (1760/Turgatir), XXVII.
126/D. (i79i/Zaganos Mehmed), xxvi,
XXVII.
137/D., xxvm.
143/D., XXIX.
162/D., XXXI.
175/D., XXXII.
182/D., 25 n., xxxm.
183/D., xxxm.
202/D., xxx n., xxxv.
23 1 /D. (2290/Handanzade), xxxvii.
232/D. (2292/Ahmed), xxxvii.
INDEX
i45
233/D. (V oyvodakizi), xxxvii.
330/D., XLIV.
1011/D. (2/Orhan), xxn.
1033/D. (4/Bayezid I), xxiv.
1034/D. (4/Bayezid I), xxiv.
1044/D. (5/Mehmed I), xxv, LIV.
1045/D., Hace (5/Mehmed I), 125, xxv.
1046/D. (5/Mehmed I), xxv.
1047/D. (5/Mehmed I), xxv.
1048/D. (5/Mehmed I), xxv.
105 1 /D. (6/Murad II), xxvi, liv.
1052/D. (6/Murad II), xxv, xxvi, liv.
1053/D. (6/Murad II), xxvi.
1054/D. (6/Murad II), xxvi.
1055/D. (6/Murad II), xxvi.
1063/D. (7/Mehmed II), XXVII, Liv.
1064/D. (7/Mehmed II), XXVII.
io 79/D. (8/Bayezid II), xxvm.
1080/D. (8/Bayezid II), xxvm, Liv.
1081/D. (8/Bayezid II), xxvm.
1082/D. (8/Bayezid II), 88 n., xxvm.
1083/D. (8/Bayezid II), xxvm.
1084/D. (8/Bayezid II), xxvm.
1085/D. (8/Bayezid II), xxvm.
1095/D. (9/Selim I), xxix.
1096/D. (9/Selim I), 14, xxix.
1097/D. (9/Selim I), 88, xxix.
1098/D. (9/Selim I), xxix, LVIII.
1099/D. (9/Selim I), xxix.
1101/D. (10/Suleyman I), xxx.
1 102/D. (10/Suleyman I), xxx.
11 15/D. (11/Selim II), xxxi.
1 1 16/D. (11/Selim II), xxxi.
1 127/D. (12/Murad III), xxxn.
1128/DD. (12/Murad III), xxxii.
1129/DD. (12/Murad III), xxxii.
1 i 4 i /D. (13/Mehmed III), xxxiii.
1 142/D. (13/Mehmed III), xxxiii.
H43/D. (13/Mehmed III), XXXIII.
1 144/D. (13/Mehmed III), XXXIII.
1 145/D. (13/Mehmed III), XXXIII.
I 146/D. (13/Mehmed III), XXXIII.
1 158/D. (14/ Ahmed I), xxxiv.
1 180/D. (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
1181/D. (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
1 197/D. (18/Ibrahim), XXXVII.
I 198/D. (18/Ibrahim), XXXVII.
1205/D. (19/Mehmed IV), xxxviii.
1206/D. (19/Mehmed IV), xxxviii.
1 509/D. (1508/Balad), XXI.
15 19/D. (505/Pazarlu), XXI.
1 544/D. (1543 /John Vatatzes), xxii.
1 575/D. (1565/Constantine of Kosten-
dil), xxiii.
1576/D. (1540/John V Paleologus), xxiii,
LX I.
1621/D. (1620/John Tunteres), xxiv.
1631/D. (1630/Mirchea), 86 n., xxiv.
1636/D. (1635/Ahmed Celayir), xxiv.
1641/D. (Nerio I Acciajuoli), xxiv, lxi.
1642/D. (1640/John Th. Paleologus),
xxiv, LXI.
1663/DD. (i66i/§emseddin), xxiv.
1777/DD. (1774/Murad), XXVII.
1779/D. (570/Cem), 88 n., xxvii, lx.
1916/D. (1915/Ismail), xxvm, lxi 1.
1919/D. (581/Ahmed), xxvm, lxi 1.
2042/D. (2036/Ibrahim), xxix.
2044/DD. (2036/Ibrahim), xxix.
2121/D. (606/Mustafa), xxx.
2137/D. (2136/Sinan), xxx.
2140/D. (2i28/Hiima§ah), xxx.
2172/D. (2162/Mehmed), xxxi.
2178/D. (2i75/Siyavni§), xxxi.
2183/0. (2182/Mehmed), xxix, xxxi.
2271/D. (2243/Ahmed), xxxvi.
2376/Ebubekir, Alayali, XL.
362/Ebureftar, XLVI.
401/Edadil, XLVIII.
1500/Edebali, §eyh, 2, 1 19, xxi, xxv n.
Edime (Rumeli), 4, 22, 23, 34, 41, 44, 45,
50, 55, 56, 61, 66, 77, 79, 96, 104,
105, 108 n., 1 10, 1 13.
47/Efendi, hatun (46/Aktimur), xx.
1548/Efendizade (514/SiiIeyman), XXII.
Egypt, 51, 89, 1 14, 125.
Ekberriyet (Eldest Male Succession), 4,
5, 10, 12.
411/EIeru (Mevhibe), XLIX.
Elizabeth I (England), 42.
90/Emine (1680/Suli Dulkadirli), 83, 92,
94, xxv, xxvi, LV.
450/Emine Nazikeda, Lll.
1221/Emine (22/Mustafa II), XL.
1242/Emine (A), (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
1243/Emine (B), (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
1303/Emine (27/Abdulhamid I), XLIV.
1320/Emine (29/Mustafa IV), XLV.
1333/Emine (30/Mahmud II), XLVI.
1380/Emine (A), (32/Abdulaziz), XLVIII.
1381/Emine (B), (32/Abdulaziz), XLVIII.
2075/Emine (2072/Sinan), XXIX.
2432/Emine (1259/Saliha), XLI.
2532/Emine Naciye (833/Stileyman), 89,
XLVII, L.
2591/Emine Nazikeda, XLVIII.
2630/Emine, nabila (2613/Mehmed Ab-
bas), L.
670/Emir (16/Osman II), XXXV.
1936/Emir (584/Mahmud), 30, xxvm.
424/Emsalinur, L.
INDEX
146
England, n, 42, 53, 59 n.
2535/Enver (2533/Ahmed), 89, 97, XL VII.
Ermeni Beli, Battle of, 24.
Ernst Wilhelm von Hanstein, XL n.
44/Ertugrul, Gazi (40/Suleyman §ah),
1 n., 3, 4, 5, 23, 44 n., 54» 58, xx, xxi.
530/Ertugrul (4/Bayezid I), 22, XXIV.
880/Ertugrul Mehmed (36/Mehmed VI),
LI I.
2260/Esad, Efendi (see 2260/Mehmed
Esadullah).
Esad, general, 71.
Eski Saray, 32, 67 n., 79, 80, 81, 82, 100.
Eski§ehir, 22.
1222/Esma (22/Mustafa II), XL.
1244/Esma (A), (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
1245/Esma (B), (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
1291/Esma (26/Mustafa III), XLIII.
1304/Esma (A), (27/Abdiilhamid I), XLIV.
1305/Esma (B), (27/Abdiilhamid I),
XLIV.
1334/Esma (30/Mahmud II), XLVI.
1382/Esma (32/Abdiilaziz), xlviii.
114/Esmahan, XXVII,
mo/Esmahan Gevher (n/Selim II), 14,
15, 97, XXXI.
1171/Esmahan (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
1 176/Esmahan, Kaya (17/Murad IV), 98,
xxxvi.
i647/E§ref Barsbay (Mameluke), xxiv,
LX.
Evrenuz, 87 n.
Evrenuzogullari, 91.
1773/Eyiib (570/Cem), 30.
Eyiib, 41, 42, 45, 73.
2697/Fahir, L.
2677/Fahreddin, L.
1121/Fahriye (12/Murad III), xxxii.
2620/Faik, Karacehennem, 116, xnx.
170/Fakriye, xxxii.
2638/Fa§riye Andelib, l.
190/Fatma, xxxiv.
271/Fatma Huma^ah, xli.
324/Fatma §ebsefa, xnv.
363/Fatma, XLVI.
1000/Fatma (i/Osman I), xxi,
1010/Fatma (2/Orhan), xxii.
1030/Fatma (4/Bayezid I), xxiv.
1050/Fatma (6/Murad II), xxvi.
1071/Fatma (8/Bayezid II), 98 n., xxvm.
1090/Fatma (9/Selim I), 99, xxix.
im/Fatma (11/Selim II), 98, xxxi.
1122/Fatma (12/Murad III), XXXII.
1153/Fatma (14/Ahmed I), 97 n., xxxiv.
1172/Fatma (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
1193/Fatma (18/ibrahim), xxxvn.
I200/Fatma (19/Mehmed IV), xxxvui.
1223/Fatma (22/Mustafa II), XL.
1246/Fatma (23/Ahmed III), 67 n., xli.
1292/Fatma (26/Mustafa III), XLIII.
1306/Fatma (27/Abdiilhamid I), XLIV.
1335/Eatma (A), (30/Mahmud II), XLVI.
1336/Fatma (B), (30/Mahmud II), XLVI.
1355/Fatma (31/Abdlilmecid I), 980.,
XL VII.
1383/Fatma (32/Abdiilaziz), XLVIII.
1391/Fatma (3 3 /Murad V), xlix.
1430/Fatma Ulviye (36/Mehmed VI), lii.
1945/Fatma, Han^erli (584/Musa), 116,
xxvm.
1953/Fatma (585/Mehmed), xxvm.
2115/Fatma (2104/Ferhad), xxx.
2277/Fatma (2275 /Ibrahim), xxxvi,
2351/Fatma (2350/Osman), XXXVI 1 1 .
2383/Fatma (2382/Ali), XL.
2410/Fatma (24o6/tbrahim), xli.
2435/Fatma (2427/Mustafa), XLI.
2515/Fatma, XLVII.
2526/Fatma, XLVII.
2584/Fatma Gevheri (842/Mehmed), 106,
XLVIII.
2588/Fatma Ruinas, xlviii.
2635/Fatma Mesiyet, l.
2316/Fazil (Fazlullah), xxxvii.
312/Fehime, XLIII.
1356/Fehime (A), (31/Abdulmecid I),
XLVII,
1357/Fehime (B), (31/Abdulmecid I),
XLVII.
1392/Fehime (33/Murad V), 82 n., xlix.
1431/Fenire (36/Mehmed VI), lii.
1247/Ferdane (23 /Ahmed III), xli.
1985/Ferhad, xxvm.
2055/Ferhad, xxix.
2104/Ferhad (2 1 03 /Mustafa), xxx.
2559/Ferid, Damad (2558/Izzet), 89, 97,
XLVII.
2500/Feride (2497/Ahmed), XLVI.
Feriye Sarayl, 35, 75 n.
i928/Ferrah?ad (583/Korkud), xxvm.
1123/Fethiye (12/Murad III), XXXII.
Fetva, 28, 65, 71, 73, 75.
Feyzullah (Mehmed Emin), xlii n.
Feyzullah, §eyh-*iil Islam, 66, 76.
2527/Filisan, XLVII.
412/Filizten, xlix.
Finch, Sir John, 42.
France, 34, 36, 53, 59 n ., 60, 67, 75 n.,
87 n.
Fratricide, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 20, 21,
25”33> 46, 52, 112 n.
INDEX
2699/Fuad (2698/Ali Namik), L.
Fuad, pa§a, 52, 89.
Gazi, 61 n., 111, 1 14.
Gelibolu, 22.
1720/George Brankovich, 86, xxvi, lv,
LXIII.
1 758/George Phrantzes, xxvii.
Germiyanogullan, 50.
1173/Gevher (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
1201/Gevher (19/Mehmed IV), xxxviii.
1061/Gevherhan (7/Mehmed II), XXVII.
II 54/Gevherhan (14/Ahmed I), 9711.,
XXXIV.
1 194/Gevherhan (i8/tbrahim), 99 n.,
XXXVII.
402/Gevheri, XLVIII,
413 /Gevheri, XLIX.
1072/Gevheri Muluk (8/Bayezid II),
XXVIII.
11 12/Gevheri Muluk, Hace (1 i/Selim II),
XXXI.
Giray ( see Krim Hanlari).
Girding ( see K1I19 Ku^anmasi).
Giyasiiddin Kayhtisrev, xxi n.
Giyasiiddin II Mes’ud, xxi n.
Govemorates, princely, 8, 10, 12, 17-24,
32, 37, 39, 40, 96, 108.
Gokalp, Ziya, 90.
115/GuIbahar (1748/Abdullah), 83, XXVII,
XXVIII.
152 /Giilbahar ( see Mahidevran).
241/Giilbeyaz, XXXVIII.
364/Guicemal, XLVI.
382/Giilcemal, 83, 106, XLVI 1, LI.
7o/Giil9i9ek, 83, 92, xxm, xxiv.
150/Gulfem, xxx.
313/Gulman (Giilnar), XLIII.
242/GiiInar, XXXVIII.
2711/Giilnev, LI.
272/Glilnu?, xli.
132/Gulruh, XXVIII,
1 i6/Gu4ah, xxvii.
2609/Gulter, XLIX.
383/Gulustu (Gulistan), 83, XLVI I, LI I.
51/Giindogdu (40/Suleyman §ah), xx.
45/Giindiiz Alp (44/Ertugrul), 17, 22, xx.
53/Gundiiz Alp, xx.
^So/Giinduz (1548/Efendizade), XXII.
2 43/Giine§, xxxviii.
Hac, 64, 115, I2 3, 125-6.
2106/Haci (2104/Ferhad), xxx.
ioo/Hadice (1691 /Ibrahim II Candar-
oglu), 94, xxv, xxvi, liv.
220/Hadice Muazzez, 83, xxxvii, xxxix.
147
229/Hadice, Turhan, 48, 53, 81, 83,
xxxvii, xxxviii.
244/Hadice, 25 n., xxxviii.
262/Hadice, XL.
273/Hadice, XLI.
291/Hadice Rami, xlii.
325/Hadice, xliv.
1073/Hadice, Aym$ah (8/Bayezid II),
xxvii 1 .
1091/Hadice (9/Selim I), 98 n., xxix.
1124/Hadice (12/Murad III), XXXII.
1202/Hadice (19/Mehmed IV), 97 n., 98,
104 n., xxxviii.
1212/Hadice (21/Ahmed II), xxxix.
1248/Hadice (A), (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
1249/Hadice (B), (23/Ahmed III), xli.
1250/Hadice (C), (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
1293/Hadice (A), (26/Mustafa III), XLIII.
1294/Hadice (B), (26/Mustafa III),
XLIII.
1307/Hadice (27/Abdlilhamid I), XLIV.
1337/Hadice (30/Mahmud II), XLVI.
1358/Hadice (31/Abdiilmecid I), 106,
XL VII.
1393/Hadice (33/Murad V), 82 n., xlix.
1402/Hadice (34/Abdillhamid II), L.
2098/Hadice (601 /Bayezid), xxx.
2352/Hadice (2350/Osman), XXXVIII.
2437/Hadice (2427/Mustafa), XLI.
2595/Hadice ^iikriye (844/Yusuf Izzed-
din), XL vii, XLViii.
2634/Hadice Macide (2633/Mustafa), L.
2392/Hafaf, Hantal, 116, xli.
83/Hafise (1600/Isa Aydmoglu), xxiv.
141/Hafise (2010/Abdiilmu’in), 7, 83, 92,
XXIX, xxx.
264/Hafise, 106, XL.
1040/Hafise (5/Mehmed I), XXV.
1092/Hafise (9/Selim I), xxix.
1174/Hafise (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
263/Hafiten, XL.
41/Haime Ana, XX.
Halep (Aleppo), 108 n.
Halife (see Caliph).
510/Halil (2/Orhan), 22, XXII, LXI.
1522/Halil (507/S.), xxi.
2196/Halil, XXXII.
2408/Halil (2406/Ali), XLI.
2418/Halil, XLI.
Halil, Qandarli, 46, 47, 48, 56, 61, 62.
Halil, Patrona, 67, 76.
Halil, pa§a, 11 n., 63 n.
1785/Hali (571/Mustafa), XXVII.
503/Hamid (1/ Osman I), 122, xxi.
2539/Hamid, Halil Hamidzade (2538/
Nurullah Mehmed), xlvii.
INDEX
148
1338/Hamide (A), (30/Mahmud II),
XLVI.
1339/Hamide (B), (30/Mahmud II),
XLVI.
2466/Hamza (2465/Mehmed), XLIII.
180/Handan, 10, 25 n., 48, 83, xxxm,
XXXIV, XXXV.
2290/Handanzade, XXXVII.
1155/Hanzade (14/Ahmed I), XXXIV.
1175/Hanzade (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
2099/Hanzade (601/Bayezid), XXX.
1738/Haran, XXVI.
Harem, 40, 77-83.
53 1 /Hasan (4/Bayezid I), xxiv.
563/Hasan (6/Murad II), xxvi.
629/Hasan (12/Murad III), 31, XXXII.
661 /Hasan (14/Ahmed I), xxxiv.
722/Hasan (22/Mustafa II), XL.
735/Hasan (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
1735/Hasan (1692/tsmaU Candaroglu),
xxvi, xxvii, LIV.
1795/Hasan, Uzun, Ak Koyunlu, 51, 119,
XXVII.
2108/Hasan (2104/Ferhad), xxx.
2120/Hasan, xxx.
2141/Hasan, xxx.
2164/Hasan, Arslan (2162/Mehmed),
103 n., xxxi.
2185/Hasan, £akirciba§i, 113, xxxi.
2190/Hasan, Yemi^^i, 117, 120, xxxn.
2216/Hasan, Tiryaki, 119, xxxm.
2238/Hasan, £atalcah, xxxiv.
2313/Hasan, Ku^iik, xxxvn.
2339/Hasan, Morali, 98, 104 n., 114,
xxxvm.
2343/Hasan (1202/Hadice), xxxvm.
2563/Hasan, Riza, xlvi 1.
Hasan, Cerkes, 70.
274/Hasan§ah, xli.
341/Hasanmah, XLV.
Haseki (Favourite), 80, 81, 82, 96.
275/Hatem, XLI.
292/Hatem, xlii.
2474/Hawa (2473 /Mustafa), xliii.
1914/Haydar, §eyh, xxvni, lxii.
461/Hayimissa, LIII.
403/Hayranidil, 83, XLVIII, LIII.
2517/Hayreddin, Tunuslu, xlvii.
2626/Hayreddin, xnx.
1340/Hayriye (A), (30/Mahmud II),
XLVI.
1341/Hayriye (B), (30/Mahmud II),
XLVI.
2485/Hayriye (2484/Mehmed), XLVI.
117/Helen ( 1 750/Demetrius Paleologus),
87, XXVII, LXI.
1536/Helena Shishman, xxii, lxiii.
1541/Helena Cantacuzenus, xxii, xxm,
xxiv, LXI.
1611/Helena Cantacuzenus, xxiv, lxi.
1 743 /Helena Cantacuzenus, xxvii, lv .
1295/Heybetullah (26/Mustafa III),
XLIII.
1308/Heybetullah (27/Abdiilhamid I),
XLIV.
2380/Heybetullah (2335/Osman), XL.
2413/Heybetullah (2406/tbrahim), XLI.
2640/Hidayet, L.
Hilmi, pa$a, 90.
1511/Hizir, XXI.
221/Hubyar, XXXVII.
Hudai, Aziz Mahmud, 45.
2017/Hulefa, XXIX, LXII.
101/Hundi, hatun, xxvi.
1031/Hundi (4/Bayezid I), XXIV.
1074/Hundi (8/Bayezid II), xxvni.
1646/Hundi (1644/Orhan), 51, 88 n.,
XXIV, LX.
Hunyadi, John, 56 n.
151/Hurrem (Roxelana), 7, 19, 52, 79,
83* 93> 95» 96 n., 101, 102 n., 129, XXX,
XXXI.
365 /Hu§yar, xlvi.
Hutba (Friday Prayers), 2, 7, 49, 55.
102/Huma, 83, xxvi, xxvii.
1075/Hiima (8/Bayezid II), xxviii.
1125/Hiima (12/Murad III), xxxii.
228/Hiima$ah (Telli), 96, xxxvn.
326/Huma§ah, xliv.
2io2/Huma§ah (604/Mehmed), xxx.
2i28/Hiima§ah (2126/Riistem), xxx.
630/Huseyin (12/Murad III), 31, xxxii.
662/Htiseyin (14/Ahmed I), 34 n., xxxiv.
723/Hiiseyin (22/Mustafa II), XL.
2245/Hiiseyin, Kara, xxxiv.
2280/Hiiseyin, Sari, 1 18, xxxvi.
2367/Htiseyin, Kiz, XL.
2403/Hiiseyin, Haci, xli.
2426/Huseyin, Deli, xli.
2482/Huseyin, Kiiyuk, xlv.
2505/Huseyin Husnu (2504/Mustafa),
XLVI.
Huseyin, Amcazade Kopriilu, 66.
Huseyin Avni, 69, 70.
Huseyin, §erif, 126.
2109/Husnu (2104/Ferhad), xxx.
2541/Husnu (2540/Mustafa), XLVII.
366/Husniimelek, XLVI.
i32/Hiisnu$ah (1905/Nasuh Karaman-
oglu), XXVIII, LVII.
1986/Hiisrev (1985/Ferhad), XXVIII.
1999/Husrev (1998/Nasuh), XXVIII.
INDEX
149
2189/Hiisrev, Kose, xxxi.
Husrev Pa§a, 33 n.
Hyderabad, 89.
Hymayat Ali Khan Azam Jah (Berar), 89,
Lin n.
18/Ibrahim, Sultan, 11, 13, 14, 28, 31,
34 n., 36, 40, 41, 45, 47, 53, 65, 75,
76, 80 n., 81, 83, 96, 97 n., 99, 105,
107, no, hi, 1 14, 129, 130, XXXIV,
XXXVII, XXXVIII, XXXIX.
5ii/Ibrahim (2/Orhan), 9, 22, 30, xxn.
520/ Ibrahim (3 /Murad I), XXIII.
710/Ibrahim (21/Ahmed II), 34 n., 101,
106, XXXIX.
736/ Ibrahim (23/Ahmed III), LXI.
1513/Ibrahim (1512/Mehmed), XXI.
1 691 /Ibrahim II. Candaroglu, xxv, xxvi,
LIV.
1700/Ibrahim Qandarh, xxv.
1705/Ibrahim (1582/Mehmed II Kara-
manoglu), xxv, xxvn, lvii.
2032/Ibrahim, Hadim, 99, 115, 119,
xxix.
2036/Ibrahim (2035/Yunus), 7, 89, 98 n.,
1 14, 1 17, xxix.
2iio/Ibrahim (2104/Ferhad), xxx.
2165/ibrahim (2162/Mehmed), 14, 103 n.,
1 16, xxxi.
2191/ibrahim, Kanijeli, xxxn.
2275/Ibrahim, Melek, 117, 119, xxxvi.
2314/ibrahim, Uzun, xxxvii.
2329/ibrahim, Timak^i, xxxviii.
2363/Ibrahim, Silahdar, XL.
2368/Ibrahim (2367/Hiiseyin), XL.
24o6/Ibrahim, Nev^ehirli (2405 /Ali), 66-
67, 89, 1 17, xli.
2436/Ibrahim (2428/S.), XLI.
252 1 /Ibrahim Tevfik (825/Mehmed),
XL vi 1.
2564 /Ibrahim (2563/Riza), xlvii.
2566/Ibrahim Ilhami (2565/Abbas I),
xlvii.
Ibrahim (Mustafa), xxxvii n.
Ibrahimhanzadeler, 14, 15, 103 n.,
XXXI n.
io 76 /Ilaldi (8/Bayezid II), xxvm.
Ilhanlilar, 2 n.
1041/Incu (5/Mehmed I), XXIII, xxv,
LVII.
45 i/In$irah, lii.
Interregnum {see Devr-i Fetret).
118/Irene, 25 n., xxvii.
1532/Irene, XXII, LXI.
1542/Irene (1540/John V Paleologus),
XXII, LXI.
172 1 /Irene Comnenus, xxvi, LV, LXIII.
532/lsa (A), (4/Bayezid I) 6, 16, 22, 24,
30, 38, 122, XXIV.
533/tsa (B), (4/Bayezid I), xxiv.
737/Isa (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
1 600/ Isa, Aydmoglu, xxiv.
1716/tsa (1582/Mehmed II Karaman-
oglu), 20 n., xxv, lvii.
1 740/ Isa, xxvi.
63i/tshak (12/Murad III), 31, xxxn.
1545/Ishak, xxn.
Ishak, pa§a, 46 n., xxvi n.
1968/tskender, Dukaginzade, xxvili.
2051/Iskender, xxix.
2o6o/Iskender, xxix.
1546/Ismail (514/Suleyman), xxn.
i692/tsmail Kemaleddin (1691/Ibra-
him II Candaroglu), xxv, xxvi,
xxvii, LIV.
1915/Ismail I (Persia), 15, 27, 51, 87, 88,
101, XXVIII, LXII.
2i68/Ismail, Bahir (2167/Ali), xxxi.
2296/lsmail, Mlifetti§, 1 17, xxxvii.
2433/Ismail Ziihdii, xli.
26o3/Ismail Hakki, xlviii.
26i6/Ismail Hakki, Hafiz, 89, xlix.
2721/ismail Hakki Okday (2720/Ahmed),
LII.
2722/Ismail, LII.
Ismail, Khedive (Egypt), 13 n., 89.
Ismail, Ziiluflii, 81 n.
Isparta (Hamideli), 22.
Istanbul, 4, 10, 13, 18, 21, 23, 28, 37, 39,
40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 51, 57, 60, 71,
77, 104, 105, 108 n., 109, no.
Ittihad ve Terakki Cemiyeti (Committee
of Union and Progress), 50 n., 70,
7 r » 90 .
Izmit (Kocaeli), 22.
2558/Izzet Hasan, Seyyid, xlvii.
James I (England), 11.
Janissaries, 8, 9, 10, 15, 39, 42, 43, 54,
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 68, 76, 120,
126.
1 53 1 /John VI Cantacuzenus, 77 n., XXII,
LXI.
1540/John V Paleologus, xxn, xxm,
xxiv, LXI.
I 543/J°h r * Vatatzes, xxn.
1560/John Alexander II Shishman,
XXIII.
1 605/John, of Hungary, xxiv.
1620/John Tunteres, xxiv.
1 640/ John Theodore Paleologus, xxiv,
LXI.
INDEX
150
Kadinlar Saltanati (Rule of the Women),
47, 79, 81, 92.
Kafes (Cage), 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21,
22 n., 32-36, 40, 41, 52, 65, 66, 67,
75, 88, 96, 99, 100, 102, 103, 108.
Kagidhane, 67, 79.
Kaitbey (Mameluke), 125.
1*0/ Kale Kartanou, xxxi.
1980/Kamersah (1976/Ahmed), XXVIII.
2536/Kamil (2533/Ahmed), 89 n., xlvii.
Kamil, pa§a, 71.
441/KamureS, LI.
Kansu Gavri (Mameluke), 97 n.
Kapudan Pa?a (Admiral), 91.
1685/Karaca (Jelebi, 87, xxv.
Karacahisar, 22.
Kara Koyunlular, 90.
1707/Karaman (1705 /Ibrahim Karaman-
oglu), xxv, LVII.
Karamania, 18.
Karamanogullari, 50, 55, 56, 85, 90, 97 n.,
LVII.
Karlowitz, Peace of, 66.
512/Kasim (2/Orhan), XXII.
534/Kasim Yusuf (4/Bayezid I), xxiv.
551/Kasim (5/Mehmed I), 22, xxv.
663/Kasim (14/Ahmed I), 31, 34 n.,
XXXIV.
1695/Kasim Kavameddin (1690/Mubariz-
zeddin Candaroglu), xxv, xxvr, liv.
1 708/ Kasim (i705/tbrahim Karaman-
oglu), xxv, LVII.
1912/Kasim (581/Ahmed), 30, 51, 52,
xxvm.
1943/Kasim (1942/Mehmed), XXVIII.
2327/Kasim, Cerrah, ii3,xxxvn.
Kastamonu, 22, 23.
1195/Kaya ( 1 8/Ibrahim), XXXVII.
1176/Kaya Esmahan ( see Esmahan).
Kaymakam ( see Regent).
Kefe (Krim), 15, 19, 22, 23, 95.
809/KemaIeddin (30/Mahmud II), XL VI.
Kemaleddin, Ta^kopruluzade, 28.
2223 /Kenan, Koca, xxxiv.
2297/Kenan, San Topal, 118, 119,
XXXVII.
367/ Ke rime, xlvi.
2614/Kerime, nabila (2613/Mehmed Ab-
bas), 1 17, XLIX.
K1I19 Ku^anmasi (Girding), 41, 69, 73.
Kireli, Battle of, 24.
Kizil Ahmedliler (see Candarogullari).
Kizlar Agasi (Master of the Women), 40,
53*
Konya (Karamania), 15 n., 22, 23.
535/Korkud (4/Bayezid I), 23, xxiv.
583/Korkud (8/Bayezid II), 20, 21, 30, 39,
44 n., 46, 47, 62, 125, xxvm.
632/Korkud (12/Murad III), 31, XXXII.
Kosova, Battle of, 9, 28, 44, 86, 107, no,
in, xxm n.
Koyunhisar, Battle of, 17, 24.
Kopriiliiler, 91, lix.
191/Kosem Mahpeyker, 11, 14, 25 n., 28,
47, 48, 65, 81, 83, 97, xxxiv, xxxvi,
xxxvii.
ri56/Kosem (14/Ahmed I), xxxiv.
Krim Hanlan (Giray), 15, 21, 88, 91, 116,
120, LVIII.
Kruchevatz, 86 n.
2253/Kurt, xxxiv.
i203/Ku9iik (19/Mehmed IV), xxxviii,
LIX.
Kiitahya (Germiyan), 22, 23, 37, 90 n.
Ladislas (Naples), xxiv n.
Lala, 18, 1 17.
Lale Devri (Tulip Age), 67, 103 n.
1590/Lazar I Grebeljanovich, xxiv, lxiii.
368/Lebriz Felek, xlvi.
Leidesdorf, Dr., 70.
2592/Leman, xlvii 1.
300/Leyla, XLII.
London, 35, 48.
1610/Louis Fadrique (Salona), xxiv, LXI.
Louis XIV (France), 59 n.
Louis XVI (France), 34.
2058/Liitfi (2057/AbdulimPin), 100 n.,
1 17, XXIX.
1981/Mahdumzade (1976/Ahmed), XXVIII.
192/Mahfiruz, Hadice, 48, 83, xxxiv,
XXXV.
152/Mahidevran (Gulbahar), 7, 52, xxx.
24/Mahmud I, Sultan, 12, 36, 45, 67,
80 n., 105, 107, no, 1 16, 129, 130,
XL, XLII.
30/Mahmud II, Sultan, 13, 14, 15, 28, 29,
3L 33, 34, 36, 40, 4L 45, 68, 69, 79,
87 n., 98 n., 99, 105, 106, no, in,
112, 121, 129, 130, XLIV, XLVI,
XLVII, xlvii 1.
552/Mahmud (5/Mehmed I), 22, 27, 30,
XXV.
584/Mahmud (8/Bayezid II), 18, 23, 30,
51, xxvm.
59 1 /Mahmud (9/Selim I), 30, xxix.
603 /Mahmud (10/Suleyman I), xxx.
633/Mahmud (12/Murad III), 31, XXXII.
651/Mahmud (13/Mehmed III), 10, 31,
xxxm.
738/Mahmud (23/Ahmed III), 34 n., xli.
INDEX
810/Mahmud (30/Mahmud II), 106,
XLVI.
840/Mahmud Celaleddin (32/Abdiilaziz),
XL VIII.
870/Mahmud Necmeddin (35/Meh-
med V), LI.
1701/Mahmud Qandarh, 87, 97, 125,
xxv.
i72$/]Vlahmud$ah, §adibeyzade, XXVI.
1956/Mahmud (586/§ahin§ah), xxvni.
1987/Mahmud (1986/Hiisrev), xxvm.
1996/Mahmud (1995 /Ahmed), xxvm, Liv.
2000/Mahmud (1999/Hiisrev), xxvm.
2070/Mahmud, Giizelce, 115, xxix.
209 1 /Mahmud (601/Bayezid), 31, xxx.
2122/Mahmud, xxx.
2139/IVIahmud (2136/Sinan), xxx.
2163/Mahmud (2160/Ali), 103 n., xxxi.
2186/Mahmud, Zal, xxxi.
2198/Mahmud (2196/Halil), XXXII.
2479/Mahmud, Molla (2478/Yusuf),
XL IV.
249 1 /Mahmud Edhem (2484/Mehmed),
XLVI, XLVII.
2499/AIahmud Celaleddin (2497/Ahmed),
XLVI, XLVII.
2501 /Mahmud, XLVI.
2512, Mahmud Celaleddin (2510/Meh-
med Halil), xlvi, xlvii.
2583/Mahmud §evket (842/Mehmed),
xlvii 1, L.
2624/Mahmud, XLIX.
Mahmud JJevket, pa§a, 71.
181/Mahpeyker, xxxm.
56/Mal Hatun (1505/Omer), 83, 86, xxi,
XXII.
Malek Salih (Egypt), 108 n.
Malko^ogullan, 91.
Malta, 53, 72.
Mamelukes (Memlukler), 52, 88, 90, 91,
LX.
Manisa (Saruhan), 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 37,
40, 56, 61, 62, 96, 103, 105.
103/Mara (1720/George Brankovich), 86,
94, xxvi, LV, LXIII.
84/Maria (A), (1605/John of Hungary),
XXIV.
85/Maria (B), (1610/Louis Fadrique),
25 n., xxiv, lxi.
119/Maria (1753/Dorino I Gattilusio),
XXVII, LV.
1 359 /Mediha (31/AbdUlmecid I), XLVII.
2712/AIediha, li.
5/Mehmed I, Sultan, 6, 7, 9, 16, 22, 24,
2 9> 3°, 38, 44, 45, 50, 61, 83, 86, 92,
94 > 97 n., 105, 108 n., no, 113, 115,
151
117, 118, 121, 123, 129, 130, XXIV,
XXV, XXVI, LIV, LV, LVI, LVII, LX, LXI,
LXIII.
7/Mehmed II, Sultan, 5 n., 6, 9, 1 1, 19 n.,
20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 30, 38, 39,
4 L 43 » 44 > 45 > 4 ^» 48, 5 x i 55>56, 58,61,
62, 63, 75, 76, 79, 83, 86 n., 87, gon.,
94, 96, 101, 104, 105, 108, 109 n., no,
hi, 114, 116, 121, 123, 129, I3°»
XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, LIV, LV, LVI,
LVII, LX, LXI.
13/Mehmed III, Sultan, 10, 21, 23, 28,
31,42,44,45, 83, 104, 105, 108, no,
112, 114, 122, 123, 129, 130, XXXII,
XXXII I, XXXIV, XXXV.
19/Mehmed IV, Sultan, 12, 13, 21 n.,
28 n.,31, 33, 34, 3^, 42, 45 > 47 > 48, 53 >
65-66, 76, 81, 83, 97 n., 98, 102 n.,
104, 105, no, in, 113, 124, 129,
130, XXXVII, XXXVIII, XL, XLI, LIX.
35/Mehmed V, Sultan, 36, 42, 45, 83,
90, 105, no, 129, 130, XLVII, LI.
36/Mehmed VI, Sultan, 8 n., 16, 36, 45,
57, 58, 72-73, 76, 81 n., 83, 105, 109,
no, 120, 126, 129, 130, XLVII, lii.
553/Mehmed (5/Mehmed I), xxv.
585/Mehmed (8/Bayezid II), 23, 3°> 5 X >
88, 94, xxvm, lvi 11.
604/Mehmed (10/Suleyman I), 23, 24, 95,
xxx.
612/Mehmed (n/Selim II), xxxi.
664/Mehmed (14/Ahmed I), 28, 31, 34 n ->
40 n., xxxiv.
682/Mehmed (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
724/Mehmed (22/Mustafa II), XL.
739/Mehmed (A), (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
740/Mehmed (B), (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
741/Mehmed (C), (23 /Ahmed III), xli.
742/Mehmed (D), (23/Ahmed III), 3 X >
34, XLI.
760/Mehmed (26/Mustafa III), XLIII.
775/Mehmed (27/Abdulhamid I), XLIV.
811/Mehmed (A), (30/Mahmud II),
XLVI.
812/Mehmed (B), (30/Mahmud II), 106,
XLVI.
823/Mehmed Abdiissamed (31/Abdiil-
mecid I), xlvii.
824/Mehmed Abid (31/AbdiiImecid I),
XLVII.
825/Mehmed Burhaneddin (31 /Abdul-
mecid I), xlvii.
826/Mehmed Fuad (31/Abdiilmecid I),
xlvii.
827/Mehmed Nizameddin (31/AbdiiI-
mecid I), xlvii.
INDEX
152
828/Mehmed Rii§dii (3 1 /Abdiilmecid I),
XLVII.
829/Mehmed Vamik (3 1 /Abdiilmecid I),
106, XLVII.
830/Mehmed Ziyaeddin (31/Abdiil-
mecid I), 106, xlvii.
841/Mehmed Selim (32/Abdiilaziz),
xlvii 1.
842/Mehmed Seyfeddin (32/Abdtiiaziz),
106, XLVIII.
843/Mehmed §evket (32/Abdiilaziz),
XLVIII.
850/Mehmed Selaheddin (3 3 /Murad V),
XLIX, nil n.
864/Mehmed Abid (34/Abdiilhamid II),
104 n., l.
865/Mehmed Bedreddin (34/Abdiil-
hamid II), 106, L.
866/Mehmed Burhaneddin (34/Abdiil-
hamid II), L.
867/Mehmed Selim (34/Abdiilhamid II),
L.
871/Mehmed Ziyaeddin (35/Mehmed V),
LI.
1512/Mehmed (151 i/Hizir), xxi.
1557/Mehmed II Aydinoglu, xxn.
1582/Mehmed II (1580/Alaeddin Ali
Karamanoglu), xxm, xxv, lvii.
i66i/Mehmed, §emseddin, §eyh Bohara,
45, xxiv.
1666/Mehmed, §emseddin, xxiv.
1694/Mehmed (1693/K121I Ahmed Can-
daroglu), xxv, xxvm, liv.
1709/Mehmed (1705 /Ibrahim Karaman-
oglu), xxv, XXVII, LVII.
1731/Mehmed, Zaganos (1730/Abdullah),
XXVI, XXVII.
1739/Mehmed (1738/Haran), xxvi.
1781/Mehmed Nasir, Mameluke, xxvil,
LX.
1796/Mehmed, Ugurlu (1795/Uzun
Hasan), 119, xxvn, xxvm.
1929/Mehmed, Bali, xxvm.
1942/Mehmed, xxvm.
1957/Mehmed (586/^ahin^ah), 23, 24,
30, xxvm.
1965/Mehmed (1964/Ahmed Dukagin-
zade), xxvm.
1969/Mehmed (i968/Iskender), xxvm.
1990/Mehmed Hizir, xxvm.
1991/Mehmed (1990/Mehmed Hizir),
xxvm, xxix.
2008/Mehmed (2004/Yahya), xxvm.
2009/Mehmed, Arslan (2008/Mehmed),
1 13, xxviii.
2043/Mehmed, xxvm.
2073/Mehmed (2072/Sinan), xxix, XXXI.
2076/Mehmed, xxix.
2092/Mehmed (601/Bayezid), 31, xxx.
2105/Mehmed, xxx.
2117/Mehmed (2116/Mustafa), xxx.
2118/Mehmed (Murad) (606/ Mustafa),
30, xxx.
2132/Mehmed, Hakani (2129/Ahmed),
1 15, xxx.
2138/Mehmed, Civankapiciba§i (2131/
Abdurrahman), 113, 118, xxx.
2147/Mehmed (2 1 45 /Ali), xxx.
2162/Mehmed, Sokollu (2161 'Sinan),
14, 39, 47, 89, 97, 108, 1 19, XXXI.
2166/Mehmed (2 1 65 /Ibrahim), xxxi.
2180/Mehmed, xxxi.
2182/Mehmed Piyale (2181/Abdurrah-
man), xxxi.
2187/Mehmed, Cerrah, 113, xxxi,
2199/Mehmed, Ni§ar Mustafazade, xxxn.
2230/Mehmed, Karaka§, 116, xxxiv.
2246/Mehmed, Kara (2245 /Hiiseyin), 118,
xxxiv.
2260/Mehmed Esadullah, Haci, 11 n.,
88 n., 91 n., 96, 126, xxxv.
2278/Mehmed, Biyikli, 1 13, xxxvi.
2281/Mehmed Rezmi (2280/Hiiseyin),
103 n., xxxvi.
2283/Mehmed, Giircii, 11 n., 63, 115,
xxxvi.
2285/Mehmed, Ammarzade, xxxvi.
2320/Mehmed, Qau^zade, xxxvn.
2323/Mehmed, Haydaragazade, xxxvn.
2377/Mehmed, mirza, 117, xl.
2391/Mehmed, Cihangiri (2390/Ahmed),
XLI.
2393/Mehmed, Istanbullu, 117, xli.
2395/Mehmed, Nuri Lalazade, xli.
2401/Mehmed, Muhsinzade (2400/Ab-
dullah), XLI.
2408/Mehmed, Gen? (2406/ Ibrahim),
103 n., 1 14, xli.
2409/Mehmed (2406/ Ibrahim), 103 n.,
XLI.
2412/Mehmed (2411/Mustafa), XLI.
2414/Mehmed, XLI.
2423/Mehmed, ^evki, xli.
2424/Mehmed, Ragib (2423/Ibrahim),
XLI.
2425/Mehmed, Tur^u, 1 19, xli.
2443/Mehmed, Hafiz (2442/Ali), 103 n.,
XLI.
2446/Mehmed, Melek (2445 /Suleyman),
XLI.
2465/Mehmed, XLIII.
2470/Mehmed Emin (2469/Yusuf), XLin.
INDEX
i53
2484/Mehmed Ali (2483/Omer), XLVI.
2486/Mehmed, Gani, xlvi.
2502/Mehmed Saib (250 1 /Mahmud),
XLVI.
2509/Mehmed Said, xlvi.
2510/Mehmed Halil Rif’at, Giircii, xlvi.
2518/Mehmed Salih (2517/Hayreddin),
XLVI I.
2538/Mehmed, Nurullah, xlvii.
2556/Mehmed Nuri (25 5 5 /Arif), xlvii.
2570/Mehmed, £erkes, xlvii, xlviii.
2594/Mehmed Nizameddin (844/Yusuf
Izzeddin), 13, xlviii.
2598/Mehmed §erif (2597/Ahmed),
xlviii.
2613/Mehmed Abbas Halim, xlix, L.
2680/Mehmed Ali (2679/Rauf), L.
2690/Mehmed Kemaleddin (2687/
Osman), xlix n., l.
Mehmed, AJi, 48.
Mehmed, Baltaci, 15 n.
Mehmed Cavit, l n.
Mehmed Emin, Haci, xlii n.
Mehmed, Izzetpa^azade Said, xliv n.
Mehmed, Karamani, 10, 38, 39, 108.
Mehmed, Koprulii, xxxvm n., lix.
Mehmed, Mevlevi Dervi?, 42, 45.
1 643 /Mehmed§ah, 30, xxiv.
204o/Mehmed?ah (2035 /Ibrahim), xxix.
Mehterhane, 2.
Mekka, 53, 115, 123, 125-6.
1518/Melek, xxi.
2705/Melek Zeyran, LI.
i3C>9/AIelek§ah (27/AbdUlhamid I), xliv.
504/Melik (i/Osman I), xxi.
1547/Melik-i Nasir, 22, 30, xxii.
Memlukler {see Mamelukes).
1950/Menkili Giray, 88, xxviii, xxix,
lviii.
Mente^e, 23.
2672/Mer9em Abaza, l.
2520/Mestinas, xlvii.
1360/Mevhibe (31/Abdulmecid I), XLVII.
Mevlevi Dervishes, 15 n., 29, 41, 42, 45.
414/Meyliservet, XLIX.
2oo/Meyli§ah, xxxv.
425/Mezide, L.
Midhat, pa§a, 69, 70, 91, XLVII n.
Mihalogullan, 91.
462/Mihisti, LIII.
442/Mihrengis, li.
171/Mihriban, XXXII.
2636/Mihriban, L.
1 ioo/Mihrim§h (10/Suleyman I), 40 n.,
52, 97, xxx.
1 126/Mihrimah (12/Murad III), XXXII.
1296/Mihrimah (26/Mustafa III), XLIII.
1342/Mihrimah (30/Mahmud II), XLVI.
1960/Mihrimah (i07o/Ay§e), xxviii.
2100/Mihrimah (601/Bayezid), xxx.
263 1 /Mihrimah Seltpuk (860/Abdur-
rahim), L.
276/Mihri§ah, 83, xli, xliii.
3i4/Mihri§ah, 83, xliii, xlv.
404/Mihri§ah, xlviii.
i297/Mihri$ah (26/Mustafa III), xliii.
2596/Mihri§ah (844/Yusuf Izzeddin),
xlviii, liii.
1591/Militsa, xxiv, lxiii.
Milosh Kobilovich, 107.
1630/Mirchea (Wallachia), 86 n., xxiv.
369/Mislinayab, XLVI.
Moldavia, 91, 120.
Mongols, 1, 15.
Morea, 24.
1690/Mubarizzeddin, Candaroglu, xxv,
XXVI, liv.
Mudanya, 40, 72.
Muhsine, 98 n., XXIX n.
3/Murad I, Sultan, 8 n., 9, 17, 19, 22, 23,
24, 27, 30, 44, 45, 49> 77> 83, 85 m,
86, 92m, 97m, 105, 107, no, in,
1 14, 116, 1 19, 129, 130, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV, XLI, XLIII, LIV, LVII.
6/ Murad II, Sultan, 7, 8, 9, 20 n., 22, 23,
27, 30, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56 ,
57, 58, 61, 62, 77, 83, 86, 90 n., 92,
94, 105, no, 112 n., 116, 121, 129,
130, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, LIV, LV, LVI,
LVII, LX, LXI, LXIII.
12/Murad III, Sultan, 21, 23, 31, 4°»43 n *»
44, 45, 80 n., 83, 98, 101, 102, 104,
105, 108, 109 n., no, 122, 123, 129,
130, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII.
17/Murad IV, Sultan, n, 14, 28, 31, 33 n.,
36, 40, 43, 45, 47, 48, 64, 65, 83, 104,
105, no, 114, 118, 129, 130, xxxiv,
xxxvi.
33/Murad V, Sultan, 12, 13, 29, 35, 36,
42, 45, 48, 52, 53, 69-70, 74, 75, 76,
82 m, 83, 95 n., 105, no, 129, 130,
XLVII, XLIX.
592/Murad (9/Selim I), 30, XXIX.
605/Murad (10/Suleyman I), xxx.
634/Murad (12/Murad III), 31, XXXII.
692/Murad (18/Ibrahim), XXXVII.
725/Murad (A), (22/Mustafa II), XL.
726/Murad (B), (22/Mustafa II), 34 n.,
106, XL.
743/Murad (A), (23 /Ahmed III), XLI.
744/Murad (B), (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
776/Murad (27/Abdulhamid I), XLIV.
INDEX
i54
813/Murad (30/Mahmud II), XL VI.
1774/Murad (570/Cem), 30, XXVII.
1913/Murad (581/Ahmed), 15, 51, XXVIII,
LX I.
2093/Murad (601/Bayezid), XXX.
2231/Murteza, XXXIV.
536/Musa (A), (4/Bayezid I), xxiv.
537/Musa (B), (4/Bayezid I), 6, 16, 22,
24, 27, 29, 30, 38, 86 n., 122, xxiv.
1937/Musa (584/Mahmud), 30, XXVIII.
2220/Musa, XXXIV.
Musa, Kara, xxxvn n.
277/Musli, xli.
15/Mustafa I, Sultan, 10, 11, 29, 31, 33,
36, 45, 59, 63, 64, 74, 75, 76, 83, 101,
105, IIO, III, 114, 122, 129, 130,
XXXIII, XXXV.
22/Mustafa II, Sultan, 36, 41 n., 45, 66,
76, 81 n., 83, 105, 106, no, 122, 129,
130, XXXVIII, XL, XLII, LIX.
26/Mustafa III, Sultan, 12, 36, 45, 67,
83, 96 n., 105, no, 122, 129, 130,
XLI, XLII I, XLV.
29/Mustafa IV, Sultan, 13, 14, 15, 28, 29,
3i, 36, 45, 68, 75, 76, 83, 105, 107,
IIO, 122, 129, 130, XLIV, XLV.
538/Mustafa, Diizme (4/Bayezid I), 9, 22,
24, 30, 44 n., 50, 1 14, 121, xxiv.
554/Mustafa (5/Mehmed I), 8, 9, 22, 30,
50, 51, 121, xxv.
571/Mustafa (7/Mehmed II), 18, 20, 22,
24, 104, 121, XXVII, XXVIII.
606/Mustafa (10/Siileyman I), 7, 18, 19,
23, 28, 30, 52, 63, 122, xxx.
613/Mustafa (1 1 /Selim II), 31, 122, xxxi.
635/Mustafa (12/Murad III), 31, 122,
XXXII.
671/Mustafa (16/Osman II), 122, XXXV.
1784/Mustafa (1783/Sinan), XXVII.
1944/Mustafa (1942/Mehmed), XXVIII.
1958/Mustafa (586/§ahin$ah), xxvui.
1962/Mustafa (1961/Davud), XXVIII.
1970/Alustafa (1968/tskender), XXVIII.
1978/Mustafa (1976/ Ahmed), xxvm.
1994/Mustafa (1694/Mehmed), xxvm,
LIV.
2029/Mustafa, xxix, xxx.
2052/Mustafa, Bo§nak (2051/Iskender),
1 13, xxix.
2064/Mustafa, xxix.
2 1 03 /Mustafa, xxx.
21 12/Mustafa (2104/Ferhad), xxx.
2116/Mustafa, xxx.
2133/Mustafa (2129/Ahmed), xxx.
2 176/Mustafa (2 i75/Siyavu§), 103 n.,xxxi.
2200/Mustafa, Lala, 117, xxxii.
2214/Mustafa, XXXIII.
2234/Mustafa (2228/Ahmed), 103 n.,
xxxiv.
2237/Mustafa, Canpuladzade (2236/Ali),
xxxiv.
2239/Mustafa, Kanbur, 116, 117, xxxiv.
2240/Mustafa, Kara, xxxiv.
2255/Mustafa, Nakka§, 117, xxxiv.
2288/Mustafa, Tiiccarzade (2287/Sinan),
1 13, 1 1 9, xxxvi.
2300/Mustafa, lb§ir, xxxvn.
2310/Mustafa, Sipahi, 1 18, xxxvi 1.
2315/Mustafa, Biyikh, xxxvn.
2338/Mustafa, Sankgi (2337/Suleyman),
97 n., 98, 1 18, xxxvn n., xxxvni.
2347 /Mustafa, Merzifonlu Kara (2345 /
Oruc), 66, 89, 1 17, xxxvni, xl, lix.
2355/Mustafa, Kasim, xxxvni.
2360/Mustafa, Fazil Koprulu, 59 n., xl,
LIX.
2363/Mustafa, Koca, xl.
2378/Mustafa, Kara, xl.
2411/Mustafa, XLI.
2427/Mustafa, San (2426/Huseyin), xli.
2444/Mustafa, Haci (2442/Ali), 103 n.,
XLI.
2447/Mustafa, Sinek, 118, XLI.
2455/Mustafa, Qelik, Peri^an, 113, 118,
XLIII.
2472/Mustafa, Bahir (2471 /Abdurrah-
man), 1 13, 1 17, XLIII.
2473/Mustafa, Ni$anci, 118, XLIII.
2488/Mustafa, §erif, xlvi.
2504/Mustafa, XLVI.
2540/Mustafa, XLVI I.
2553/Mustafa Re§id, Biiyuk, XLVII.
2633/Mustafa §erif, L.
Mustafa, Alemdar, 68, 76, 91.
Mustafa Fadil (Egypt), 13 n.
Mustafa, Kabaksi, 68.
Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk), 72, 73, 74, L n.
Mustafa, Kemanke§ Kara, xxxvi n.
Mustafa, Lala, lii n.
1596/Mutahhare Sultan, xxiv.
134/Miihumaz, xxvm.
1361/MukbiIe (31/Abdulmecid I), XLVII.
120/Mukrime (see Sitt).
I 343/Miinire (30/Mahmud II), xlvi.
1362/Mlinire (31/Abdlilmecid I), XLVII.
1 384/Munire (32/AbdiiIaziz), XLVin.
2516/Mlinire (821/Ahmed), XLVII.
426/Mii^fika, l.
452/Miiveddet, LII.
Nahcivan, Battle of, 24.
Naif, Emir (Transjordan), 50 n.
INDEX
i55
1251/Naile (23/Ahmed III), xu.
1363/Naile (31/Abdulmecid I), XLVII.
1403/Naile (34/Abdulhamid II), L.
1364/Naime (31/Abdulmecid I), XLVII.
1404/Naime (34/Abdiilhamid II), L.
Naiplik ( see Regency).
Nakib-iil E§raf, 42, 45.
327/Nak§idil, 83, 87 n., xliv, xlvi.
384/Nalandil, XLVII.
Nanuk Kemal, 69.
1905/Nasuh, Karamanoglu, xxvm, LVII.
1998/Nasuh, xxvm.
2232/Nasuh, Gomulcuneli, xxxiv.
Nationalists, 72, 74, 76, 100.
385/Navekmisal, XLVII.
1252/Nazife (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
2528/Naziter, XLVII.
427/Nazikeda, l.
2610/Naziknaz, XLIX.
1 385/ Nazima (32/Abdiilaziz), xlviii.
172/Nazperver, XXXII.
2580/Necem Felek, xlviii.
2561/Necib (2560/Sami), XLVII.
1020/Nefise (3/Murad I), 86, 97 n., xxm,
LVII.
342/Nefizar, XLV.
1365/Neire (31/Abdulmecid I), XLVII.
386/Nergis, XLVII.
I 787/Nergis?ah (571 /Mustafa), XXVII,
xxvm.
2581/Nervaliter, 106, xlviii.
1967/Nesl^ah (1965/Mehmed), xxvm.
i 988 /Nesli§ah (1985/Ferhad), xxvm.
2725 /Nesli§ah (891/Omer Faruk), liii.
387/Nesrin, XLVII.
405/Nesrin, 70 n., xlviii.
453/Nevare, LII.
3 8 8/Neves er, xlvii.
370/Nevifidan, xlvi.
454/Nevzad, LII.
I 35/Nigar, xxvm.
62/Niliifer (i53o/S.), 83, 8 5, 92 n., 101,
xxii, xxm.
2674/Niliifer, L.
814/Nizameddin (30/Mahmud II), xlvi.
Nointel, M. de, 42.
745/N u’man (23/Ahmed III), 34 n., XLI.
236i/Nu J man Kopriilu (2360/Mustafa),
XL, lix.
2385/Numan (2384/Ali), XL.
2450/Nu’man, XLI.
572/Nureddin (7/Mehmed II), XXVII.
831/Nureddin (31/Abdulmecid I), XLVII.
1710/Nure Sufi (1705/tbrahim Kara-
manoglu), xxv, lvii.
343/Xun$ems, xlv.
371/Nuritab, XLVI.
161/Nurubanu, 83 , xxxi, xxxn.
328/Nukhetseza, XLIV.
389/NiikhetSeza, XLVII.
777/Nusret Mehmed, xliv.
1583/Oguz (1580/Alaeddin Karaman-
oglu), XXIII, LVII.
1778/OgUzhan (570/Cem), 20, 21, 30,
39, 47, XXVII.
2/Orhan, Sultan, 2 n., 7, 8 n., 9, 17, 19,
22, 23, 44, 45, 49, 54, 55, 58, 77, 83,
85, 86 n., 91, 92, 93, 101, 105, no,
ii2n., 114, 116, 119, 129, 130, xxi,
XXII, XXIII, LIV, LXI, LXIII.
564/Orhan (6/Murad II), 30, xxvi.
693/Orhan (i8/ibrahim), 34 n., xxxvil.
1625/Orhan (534/Kasim Yusuf), xxiv.
1644/Orhan (540/Stileyman), 27, 50,
XXIV, LX.
1651/Orhan (1650/D.), XXIV.
1938/Orhan (1937/Musa), xxvm.
1940/Orhan (584/Mahmud), 30, xxvm.
2094/Orhan (601/Bayezid), 31, xxx.
2345/Oruc, §ehit, xxxviii, lix.
i/Osman I, Sultan, 1 n., 2 n., 3, 4, 5, 8,
9, 17, 22, 23, 28, 30, 41, 44, 45, 49,
54, 58, 83, 85 n., 86, 101, 105, no,
114, 116, 118, 122, 129, 130, xx,
XXI, XXII, LXI, LXIII.
16/Osman II, Sultan, 11, 27 n., 28, 31, 36,
40 n,, 45, 48, 64, 76, 83, 88 n., 91 n.,
95 n., 96, 105, 107, no, 114, 119,
122, 125, 129, 130, xxx n., xxxiv, xxxv.
25/Osman III, Sultan, 31, 36, 45, 83, 101,
no, 129, 130, XL, XLII.
614/Osman (n/Selim II), 31, xxxi.
636/Osman (12/Murad III), 31, XXXII.
694/Osman (18/ Ibrahim), xxxvn.
815/Osman (30/AIahmud II), XLVI.
832/Osman Seyfeddin (31/Abdiilmecid I),
XLVII.
1917/Osman (581/Ahmed), 30, XXVIII.
1938/Osman ( 1 937/Musa), XXVIII.
1952/Osman (i95i/AIem§ah), xxvm.
2053/Osman (2052/Mustafa), XXIX.
2095 /Osman (601/Bayezid), 31, xxx.
2113/Osman (2104/Ferhad), xxx.
2127/Osman (2126/Rustem), xxx.
2134/Osman (2129/Ahmed), xxx.
2335/Osman, Sirke, 118, xxxviii, XL.
2350/Osman, Ku^uk, xxxviii.
2 3 88 /Osman, Topal, XLI.
241 5 /Osman, Ku^iik, xli.
2440/Osman, ^erkes, xli.
2463/Osman (2461/Ahmed), XLIII.
INDEX
156
2612/Osman Fuad (850/Mehmed), xlix.
2687/Osman Nuri, Gazi, L.
i925/Osman§ah (582/Alem$ah), 21 n., 23,
30, XXVIII.
2o63/Osman§ah (1991/Mehmed), 14,
XXIX.
Otluk Bell, Battle of, 24.
539/Omer (4/Bayezid I), XXIV.
637/Omer (12/Murad III), 31, XXXII.
891/Omer Faruk (31/Abdiilmecid II),
XLVIII, LI I, Lin.
872/Omer Hilmi (35/Mehmed V), li.
i5°5/^ mer i xxi.
2483/Omer, Haci, xlvi.
2242/Ozbey Abaza, Yavuz, xxxiv.
Padre Ottomano, 53.
344/Pakize, XLV.
1745/Paolo Erizzo, xxvii.
Paris, 35, 48, no.
Passarowitz, Peace of, 66.
I032/Pa?a Melek (4/Bayezid I), XXIV.
1517/Pa^a Hatun, xxi.
505/Pazarlu ( 1 /Osman I), 24, xxi.
Pelekanon, Battle of, 24.
372/Perestev, XLVI.
390/Perestu, 81 n., XL vn, L n.
2706/Perizade, LI.
2707/Pemian, LI.
Persia, 15, 27, 28, 51, 52, 67.
Pertev, pa§a, 30 n.
373/Pertevniyal, 83, XLVI, XLVIII, l n.
2675/Pervin, L.
374/Perviz Felek, xlvi.
351/Peykidil, 25 n., xlv.
429/Peyveste Osman, l.
2182/Piyale (2 18 1 /Abdurrahman), xxxi.
222/Poliye, XXXVII.
245/Rabia Giilnu$, 81, 83, 102 n.,
XXXVIII, XL, XLI.
250/Rabia, 106, XXXIX.
278/Rabia §ermi, 83, xli, xliv.
1253/Rabia (A), (23/Ahmed III), xli.
1254/Rabia (B), (23/Ahmed III), xli.
1310/Rabia (A), (27/Abdiilhamid I),
XLIV.
1311/Rabia (B), (27/Abdiilhamid I),
XLIV.
2627/Rauf (2626/Hayreddin), XLIX.
2679/Rauf, L.
293/Raziye, XLI I.
2247/Receb, Topal, 65, 1 19, xxxiv.
2369/Receb, XL.
345/Refet, XLV.
1 366/Ref ia (31/Abdiilmecid I), xlvi 1 .
1 405/ Ref ia (34/Abdulhamid II), l.
1420/Refia (35/Mehmed V), LI.
2621/Refik (2620/Faik), XLIX.
415/ReftaridiI, XLIX.
Regency (Naiplik), 20, 46-48.
416/Rezan, XLIX.
Rhodes, 30.
1255/Rihane (23 /Ahmed III), XLI.
2563/Riza Hasan, xlvii.
315/Rif’at, xliii.
329/Ruh?ah, xliv.
279/Rukiye, XLI.
1177/Rukiye (A), (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
1178/Rukiye (B), (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
1224/Rukiye (A), (22/Mustafa II), XL.
1225/Rukiye (B), (22/Mustafa II), XL.
1256/Rukiye (A), (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
1257/Rukiye (B), (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
1367/Rukiye (31/Abdiilmecid I), XLVII.
1432/Rukiye Sabiha (36/Mehmed VI),
LI I, LIII.
2282/Rukiye (2280/Huseyin), XXXVI.
2334/Rukiye (2329/ Ibrahim), xxxvni.
2394/Ru^iye (2391/Mehmed), XLI.
2 398/Rukiye (2393/Mehmed), xli.
2617/Rukiye (850/Mehmed), XLIX.
Rumelia, 9, 19, 20, 24, 55, 118.
Ruschuk, 68.
391/Rusdil, XLVII.
Russia, 53.
2002/Rustem, Giizelce, 115, xxviii.
2126/Riistem, Mekri (2029/Mustafa), 52,
& 9 > 97> J i6, 1 17, xxx.
Rii^dii, pa§a, 69, 70.
2065/Saadet (1950/Menkili Giray), 88,
XXIX, LVIII.
1258/Sabiha (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
1368/Sabiha (31/Abdiilmecid I), XLVII.
223/Sa9bagh, xxxvn.
Safeviler, 87 n., 88 , 91, lxii.
430/Safinaz, 81 n., l.
I 73/Safiye, 23 n., 83, xxxii, xxxiii.
1179/Safiye (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
1226/Safiye ( 22 /Mustafa II), XL, LIX.
2248/Safiye (2247/Receb), XXXIV.
2 33^/Safiye (1200/Fatma), xxxvm.
224/Sakizula, XXXVII.
225/SaIiha Dila^ub, 83, xxxvii, xxxix.
265/Saliha, XL, XLI.
431/SaIiha, L.
1259/Saliha (23/Ahmed III), 106, XLI.
I 3 i 2/Saliha (27/Abdiilhamid I), xliv.
1344/Saliha (30/Mahmud II), XLVI.
1386/SaIiha (32/Abdulaziz), XLVIII.
2I 35/Saliha (2i28/Hiima§ah), xxx.
INDEX
i57
2496/Saliha, XLVI.
Salonika, 36, 71.
2560/Sami, Necibzade, xlvii.
1369/Samiye (31/Abdiilmecid I), XLVII.
1406/Samiye (34/AbdUlhamid II), L.
Samsun, 72.
Sancak (Province), 2, 17, 18, 19, 20, 26,
in, 118.
San Remo, no.
49/Savci, Sarubati (44/Ertugrul), 17, 24,
xx.
506/Savo (i/Osman I), xxi.
52i/Savci (3/Murad I), 22, 23, 27, 30, 49,
XXIII.
432/Sazkar, L.
i042/Sel£uk (A), (5/Mehmed I), 97 n.,
xxv.
1043/SeRuk (B), (5/Mehmed I), xxv,
XXVI, Liv.
I0 77/Sel£uk (8/Bayezid II), xxvm.
1093/Selsuk (9/Selim I), xxix.
9/Selim I, Sultan, 7, 18 n., 19, 22, 23, 30,
44, 45, 47, 5i, 52, 57, 62, 63, 76,
80 n., 81 n., 83, 88, 92, 94, 99, 101,
105, no, 114, 115, 120, 123, 125,
*29, 130, xxvm, xxix, xxx, lvi,
lviii, lxii.
n /Selim II, Sultan, 12, 13, 14, 21, 23,
24, 28, 33, 39, 40, 44, 45, 47, 52,
83, io2, 105, 108 n., no, hi, 117,
118, 122, 129, 130, xxx, xxxi, xxxii.
28/Selim III, Sultan, 12, 14, 29, 31, 34,
36, 40 n., 45, 67-68, 75, 76, 83, 101,
io 5, 107, no, 113, 116, 129, 130,
xliii, XLV.
638/Selim (12/Murad III), 31, xxxii.
652/Seiim (13/Mehmed III), 10, 31,
XXXIII.
665 /Selim (14/Ahmed I), xxxiv.
695/Selim (1 8/Ibrahim), 34 n., xxxvii.
7i i/Selim (21/Ahmed II), 101, 106,
XXXIX.
727/Selim (22/Mustafa II), XXXIV n., XL.
746/Selim (A), (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
747/Selim (B), (23/Ahmed III), 106, XLI.
778/Selim (27/Abdulhamid I), XLIV.
^475/Selim, Haci, xliv.
Seljuks (Sel^uklar), 1, 2, 7, 18, 20, 80 n.,
9i, n8, xxi n.
Semendire (Smederovo), 19, 23.
1 37o/Semiha (31/Abdiilmecid I), XLVII.
I 37i/Seniha (31/Abdiilmecid I), XLVII.
2503/Seniye ( 24 9 7 /Ahmed), xlvi.
oeniye (Albania), 50 n.
Serbians, 85, 86 , lxiii.
392 'Serf! raz, xlvii.
393/Servetseza, XLVII.
1140/Sevgilim (13/Mehmed III), XXXIII.
1770/Sevired, XXVII.
352/Seyare, XLV.
748/Seyfeddin (23/Ahmed III), 34 n.,
XLI.
851/Seyfeddin (33/Murad V), XLIX.
1780/Seyfeddin Kaytbay (Mameluke),
XXVII, LX.
Sigetvar, 39, 108 n., no.
Silahdar Agasi (Sword-bearer), 41, 45.
Sikke (Money), 2, 7, 41, 55.
Silivri, 108 n.
1737/Sinan, Koca (1735/Hazar), xxvi.
1783/Sinan, Bulayir, xxvn.
1959/ Sinan, Giivey, 115, xxvm.
2072/Sinan, Koca (2071/Ali), 120, xxix.
2136/Sinan, Yusuf Cigalazade, xxx,
xxxm.
2161/Sinan, Cemaleddin, xxxi.
2177/Sinan (2i75/Siya\m§), xxxi.
2287/Sinan, Haci, xxxvi.
120/Sitt (1755/Siileyman Dulkadirli), 79,
90 n., 94, 96, 99, xxvn, lvi.
Sivas, 22, 24.
2175/Siyavu?, Kanijeli, 98, xxxi.
2250/Siyavu?, xxxiv, xxxvi n.
Skaliyeri, 29 n.
1077/Sofu (8/Bayezid II), xxvm.
Sofya, 20 n.
Sogiit, 4, 44, 105, no.
Stavrides, 29 n.
1 535/Stephen Urosh IV, Dushan, xxn,
LXIII.
1974/Stephen Vukchich, xxvm.
Succession, Law of, 4-16, 20, 49, 52, 91,
103, 120.
1680/Sul? Dulkadirli, xxv, lvi.
Sultan, 6, 9, 38, 39, 59, 112, 118.
513/Sultan (2/Orhan), XXII.
1 55 1 /Sultan, xxn, liv.
1 570/Sultan, Seyyid, xxm.
Sultanonii (Karacadag), 22.
52/Sungur Tekin (40/Suleyman §ah),
XX.
10/Siileyman I, Sultan, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14,
19, 20, 21, 23, 25 n., 28, 30, 35, 39,
4 1 , 43 n., 44, 45, 47, 52, 54> 63, 79,
83, 92, 93> 95> 96 n., 97, 100 n., 101,
103, 105, 108, no, in, 112 n., 116,
117, 1 18, 122, 123, 129, 130, xxix,
XXX, XXXI.
20/Suleyman II, Sultan, 34, 36, 43, 45,
66, 83, 101, 105, 108 n., no, 129,
130, XXXVII, XXXIX.
40/Suleyman $ah, 5, 1 1 3 1 122, xx, xxx n.
I5 8 INDEX
514/Suleyman, Gazi (2/Orhan), 7, 9, 17,
19, 22, 23, 24, 30, 55, 58, 122, XXII,
LIV.
540/ Suleyman, Emir (4/Bayezid I), 6, 16,
22, 24, 27, 30, 38, 50, 5i, 61, 77, 122,
XXIV, LX, LX I.
615/Siileyman (11/Selim II), 31, xxxi.
639/Siileyman (12/Murad III), XXXII.
653/Suleyman (13/Mehmed III), XXXIII.
666/Siileyman (14/ Ahmed I), 31, 34 n.,
XXXIV.
683/Suleyman (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
701/Suleyman (19/Mehmed IV), xxxviii.
749/Siileyman (23/Ahmed III), 34 n.,
XLI.
779/Suleyman (27/Abdulhamid I), XLIV.
81 6/Suleyman (30/Mahmud II), xlvi.
833/Suleyman (3 1 /Abdulmecid I), xlvii.
85 2/ Suleyman (33/Murad V), xlix.
1556/Suleyman II Candaroglu, xxn,
XXII 1, LIV.
1558/Siileyman Aydinoglu, xxii.
1595/Suleyman Germiyanoglu, xxiv.
1645/Suleyman (1644/Orhan), 51, xxiv.
1712/Siileyman (i705/lbrahim Kara-
manoglu), xxv, lvii.
1755/Suleyman Dulkadirli, xxvii.
1918/Siileyman (581/Ahmed), 30, xxviii.
I 939/Suleyman (1937/Musa), xxvm.
2096/Siileyman (601/Bayezid), xxx.
2114/Suleyman (2104/Ferhad), xxx.
2265 /Siileyman, Malatuk, 114, xxxvi.
2337/Suleyman, Kuloglu, 1 17, xxxviii.
2373/Siileyman, XL.
2397/Suleyman (2395/Mehmed), XLI.
2419/Siileyman tzzi (2418/Halil), 103 n.,
XLI.
2445/Siileyman, Findikh, xli.
245 1 /Suleyman, Kara, xli.
2460/ Siileyman, XHII.
Siimbiil, aga, 53.
507/S. (i/Osman I), xxi.
565/S. (6/Murad II), xxvi.
642/S. (12/Murad III), XXXII,
667/S. (14/Ahmed I), 31, xxxiv.
668/S. (14/Ahmed I), 31, xxxiv.
684/S. (17/Murad IV), xxxvi.
790/S. (29/Mustafa IV), XLV.
1510/S. (501/Alaeddin Ali), xxi.
1530/S., of Yarhisar, xxn.
1549/S., Divitdar, 114, xxn.
1655/S. (Sancakbey), xxiv.
1727/SS., 30, xxvi.
1776/S. (1774/Murad), 30, xxvii.
1782/S. (Kotada), xxvii.
2012/S. (Mameluke), xxvm.
2213/S. (2212/Davud), 103 n., xxxm.
2249/S., xxxiv, xxxvi.
2605/S., XLIX.
i407/§adiye (34/Abdiilhamid II), L.
m3/§ah (11/Selim II), xxxi.
1298/^ah (26/Mustafa III), xliii.
i345/§ah (30/Mahmud II), xlvi.
2ii9/§ah (606/Mustafa), xxx.
4i7/§ahcan, xlix.
i74/§ahhuban, xxxir.
io94/§ahhuban (9/Selim I), 100 n.,
XXIX.
i372/§ahime (31 /Abdulmecid I), xlvii.
28o/§ahin, xli.
§ahin, Lala, 17.
586/$ahin§ah (8/Bayezid II), 8 n., 22 n.,
23, 30, 51, xxvm, lvii.
25i/$ayeste, xxxix.
394 /§ayeste, XLVII.
266/§ehsuvar, 83, XL, xlii.
463/§ehsuvar, liii.
9i/§ehzade Hatun, xxv.
i984/§ehzade (1983/Ahmed), xxvm.
226/§ekerpare, xxxvn.
§emseddin, §eyh Ak, 45.
395/§emsinur, xlvii.
2498/§emsinur, 98 n., xlvi.
253o/§erefeddin (833/Suleyman), XLVII,
XLVIII.
396/§evkefza, 83, xlvii, xlix.
353/§evkinur, xlv.
I5i4/§eyhi, xxi.
§eyh-ul Islam, 27, 28, 41, 45, 63 n., 75,
119.
i36/§irin, xxvm.
227/§ivekar, xxxvn.
346/Tabisefa, XLV.
*5*5/T aci Hatun, xxi.
142/Taclu (2015/Hulefa), 87, xxix, lxii.
Tahmasp I, Shah, 28, 52.
Tahmasp II, Shah, 67.
Talat, pa§a, 73 n.
71 /Tamara (1560/John Alex. II Shish-
man), 85 n., xxm.
121/Tamara (1758/George Phrantzes), 87,
XXVII.
2593/Tazende, XLVIII.
228/Telli ( see Hiima§ah).
418/Teranidil, XLIX.
261 i/Tevhide, xlix.
Tevhide (Khedive Ismail), 89.
63/Theodora (A), (1531/John VI Canta-
cuzenus), 86 n., 93, xxn, lxi.
64/Theodora (B), (1535/Stephen Urosh
IV), XXII, LXIII.
INDEX 159
Timur, Lenk (Tamerlane), 3, 4, 6, 8 n.,
16 n., 38, 50 m, 6o, 76, 93, 94, 107,
xxiv n.
397/Tirimiijgan, 83, 1 13, XL VII, L.
294/Tiryal, XLII.
375/Tiryal, XLVI.
2673/Tiryal (2672/Mer9em), L.
Titles, 18, 43.
Top-Kapi Sarayi, 10, 21, 32, 34, 35, 4°,
43 , 79 , 123.
Trablus, 21.
Trabzond, 19, 22, 103, 105.
Tugra, 1 8, 112.
1760/Turgatir, XXVII.
229/Turhan Hadice ( see Hadice).
Turhanogullari, 91.
201/Ukayle (2260/Mehmed), 88 n., 91 n.,
96, xxxv.
Ulema, 11, 13, 25 n., 26, 39, 42, 91, 107.
27o8/Un§ar, li.
281/Ummetullah Banu, xli.
1227/Ummetullah (22/Mustafa II), XL.
1260/Ummetullah (A), (23 /Ahmed III),
XLI.
1261/Ommetullah (B), (23/Ahmed III),
XLI.
2386/Ommetullah (2333/Osman), XL.
282/Ummugtilsum, XLI.
1 196/UmmugulsUm (i8/tbrahim), xxxvn.
1204/Ummugulsum (19/Mehmed IV),
XXXVIII.
1228/Ummugulsum (22/Mustafa II), XL.
1262/Ummugulsirm (23/Ahmed III), 106,
XLI.
1263/Ommuhabibe (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
1264/Ommuselma (A), (23/Ahmed III),
XLI.
1265/Ummuselma (B), (23/Ahmed III),
XLI.
Uskiidar (Skutari), 51, 79.
593 /t)veys, 81 n., xxix.
Valide Sultan (Princess Mother), 47, 80-
83, 92-93, 96, 111,116, 1 17, 1 18, 1 19.
Varna, Battle of, 55.
2628/Vasif, XLIX.
398/Verdicenan, XLVI I.
2 95 /Verdinaz, xlii.
Vizir-i Azam (Grand Vizir), m, 120.
W allachia, 22, 91, 120.
William III (England), 59 n.
1736/Yahya (1692/lsmail), XXVI, LIV.
2004/Yahya, XX\ f III.
522/Yakub (3/Murad I), 9, 22, 28, 30,
XXIII, LX I*
640/Yakub (12/Murad III), 31, XXXII.
2011/Yakub, XXVIII.
2402/ Yakub, xli.
2434/ Yakub (2433/ismail), xli.
Yedi Kule Hisan, 64.
1726 Yeni, §adibeyzade, xxvi.
Yeni^eri Agasi, 42, 45, 112.
Yeni^eriler (see Janissaries).
Yeni§ehir, 4, 5, 44, 77.
406/Yildiz, xlviii, L n.
Yildiz Sarayi, 71, 79.
Young Turks (Jon Ttirkler), 36, 53, 69,
70, 71, 76.
203 5 /Yunus, xxix.
555/Yusuf (5/Mehmed I), 27, 30, xxv.
641/Yusuf (12/Murad III), 31, xxxii.
844/Yusuf Izzeddin (32/Abdulaziz), 12,
I3> 35, 52 , xlviii.
2224/ Yusuf, Doganci, 114, xxxiv.
2241 /Yusuf, Kozbeyci, 117, xxxiv.
23 17/Yusuf, Musahip (Joseph Markovich),
1 18, XXXVII.
2321/Yusuf, Helvaci, 116, 118, xxxvn.
2328/Yusuf, Topal, xxxviii.
2469/Yusuf, Yaglik9i, 120, XLI 11.
2478/ Yusuf, Koca, xliv.
Yusuf Adil^ah, 112 n.
Yusuf, aga, xxxvu n.
230/Zafire, xxxvil
2372/Zahide (2348/Ali), XL, LIX.
x648/'Zahir Qakmak (Mameluke), xxiv, lx.
i6i5/‘Zeches > , xxiv.
I3i3/Zekiye (27/Abdulhamid I), XLl\ r .
1373/Zekiye (31/Abdulmecid I), XLVII.
1409/Zekiye (34/Abdiilhamid II), L.
301/Zerki, XLII.
376/Zemigar, XLVI.
283/Zeyneb, XLI.
Ii57/Zeyneb (i4/^\hmed I), xxxiv.
1160/Zeyneb (16/Osman II), xxxv.
1229/Zeyneb (22/Mustafa II), XL.
1266/Zeyneb (A), (23/Ahmed III), 106,
XLI.
1267/Zeyneb (B), (23/Ahmed III), xli.
1268/Zeyneb Asima (23/Ahmed III), xli.
1346/Zeyneb (30/Mahmud II), XLVI.
2481/Zeyneb (2476/ Ahmed), XLIV.
1973/Zeyneddin (1797/Ahmed), XXVIII.
399/Zeynimelek, XLVII.
347/Zibifer, XLV.
1751/Zoe Asan, xxvii, lxi.
Zogo (Albania), l n.
1269/Zubeyde (23/Ahmed III), XLI.
GENEALOGICAL TABLES
How to Use the Tables
The following Tables contain such a mass of information that a great deal of
abbreviation has been necessary; the necessary explanations are given below.
1. The Numbers .
(а) 1-37 are for the Sultans.
(б) 40-50 are for the Ancestors of Osman.
(c) 55~465 are for the Wives of the Sultans.
( d ) 500-900 are for the Sons of the Sultans.
(e) 1000-1450 are for the Daughters of the Sultans.
(/) 1500-2725 are for all other persons.
2. Dates .
(a) 748 [1347]; 748 is a.h. and 1347 is a.d.
(b) B. 748 [1347]; B. is for ‘birth’.
(c) D. 748 [1347]; D. is for ‘death’.
(d) c. 748 [1347]; c. is for circa (about).
(e) — > 748 [1347]; — > means ‘before 1347*.
(/) 748 [1347] — — > means ‘after 1347’.
3. Names .
(а) 15 10/S. ; S. is for ‘son’, male person.
(б) 15 19/D.; D. is for ‘daughter’, female person.
(c) I5i9/DD(2); DD(2) means ‘two daughters’.
(d) Mehmed (A), (B), &c. ; used to separate two or more children of the
same name.
4. Marriages .
(a) = == : is for marriage.
(■ b ) (1) - : shows a first marriage.
(c) (1) (2) : shows a first marriage of one partner and a second marriage
* of the other partner.
(d) =: shows there were children, not given here.
King.
Kapudan Pa§a (Admiral),
not recognized.
obiit sine prolie (no chil-
dren).
Pa§a (Pasha).
quod vide (which see).
vide (see).
Vezir-iAzam (Grand Vizir).
Valide Sultan (Princess-
Mother).
M
5 - Other Abbreviations.
Ab.
abdicated.
K.
Ac.
accession.
K.P.
ass.
assassinated.
N.R.
B. (after
name) Bey (Lord).
o.s.p.
Blby.
Beylerbey (Provincial
Ruler).
P.
Byz. E.
Byzantine Emperor.
q.v.
Div.
divorced.
V.
Dp-
deposed.
V.A.
Eng.
engaged.
V.S.
ex.
executed.
Gov.
Governor.
161
} (names
unknown)
Table XX. THE ANCESTORS OF OSMAN I 1
B
<
~ s
g
3
X
1!
« -g
oy>|
c « ^
gO —
B — .
►» 3 N
3 -o' 0 .
«i «Q
U
c
3
m
oo
ca
3
-a
iSO
. M O
IOTD
C
:3
o
- « y
j 3 rjy oo
3 N. '
cfl
cfl
t!)' 0
«s $/> v>
m w .
-M<v«
CO
O (
: ^Ho £<£
- - — io'o
w
mQ
cn:3 /
*^3J .
B '
:3
o
a
<
in N -
“ ■^- ; 3
~a
c
o 00
; r* n
__ s .t:
_ c 5.'0 ,c
C4
< vJ
^ N
c
:3
Q
r^oo -
o O'
vO
. co co
rh~!
C
=3
<< ,
pqQ
162
« cs o «
'1 gl a
12-8 8
.£ 3 o,j-
> >ttD to .2
? 3 OCJB
,StJ.g?
J_> LJ ^ Ll_.
3 * 2.3 o
g 5 fl O
ci « fl
3 & O
y .2 b
O to
3 3 --3 CB
« S ^ B
m « M-. cO
G o O 3
OjQ ^ M
3 o
2 e
£_g
^ .5 ■S ••
s 8 2 .8
b S3 ^ «
3B «
Q g S.S
*- * J3 2
«5| 8
« I § |
t-f 2
CO 1 — I TO
ft) cO C _
S c3 —*
o C c 3
3 co
c ^
u o >1 . 3 " 5 ;
S’? “ g’S^ °o
jc ^ a.
tr)*J - ^ -
3
•O u ■ - -D
C £ 00 ..
cO 2 d u
*►«« -C
.s ca >“ C
% u •S'^Js * ^
'^gBh^S
B o <u « . • «_
£a -n S § I § & °
< < > -s “6 S c &
stSV-Sc^-.
3^ i.S «•» 5; >
3 *C
.*3 s3
S3 ^
O ^
« ™ —
fi N ctf >5fl
O >-, ±J JO
rj) M ft) CO
M « 3
*H-g
OT ec g +2 u.
co <J §£ B
.„ rs 3 u
S 8^ §
8 §3s S c
o B 3 s ^ w
5 {JJ3 G *C
« B 3 a g
' C-tjB rt bfl
M'S-jssHSSg
£5 3 8 o* « « 1
<2 50 ^ §■££
o _>^ >, ,
’rt
• £
L' ^ U
co o y
os s y
c
S -c '
J 2
tc 3
2< 2
- y ^ v
ft) _c
3
>-t
>bf
>% ^
C 3 CO
co* »g
ro 3
r) G ^
*2 § 3
g 3«
2 V X
c y
* i s
B <
33 §
>c3
S >>-2 o ,
.a> % m ? o
o u *. 8 >.
, B 3 f t'
x ,J1 | S
«-* O - ^4 o
j 3 « o C
q L-j C W cC
0 H .2 •“ „
tiSii
’5 « -2 ■£
S . jc m .ss
| <8 x ^ 2
3J «r
K 2 B
■2> »-• co
§
S C5
S 'o
■M ft)
2 c
c o
fi B ,
CO
w 3J :
cl c
h
*5 £ to
cr* >> y
LB m
to 3 .
£ 2 c
y N
.£ x 1
:5 ^ E-i
s od
V, '3
c? 2 c 1
u S.8
“ ’£ a
^ y
£ §
4> CO
U N
•°P
Table XXI. OSMAN I and his Family
o C3
163
^ l . S1 *
Taci Hatun
NOTES ON OSMAN I (Table XXI)
1 E.I. iii. 1075, says he was possibly not the son of Ertugrul; compare Langer and
Blake, 496, n. 65.
2 Ibn Battuta calls him ‘The Little’, and Evliya £elebi strangely refers to him as ‘The
Martyr’.
3 Various dates, from 1252 to 1260, are given, but this seems the most probable; see
Dani^mend, O.T.K. i. 1.
4 The first date represents succession to the tribal authority on the death of Ertugrul,
though it is likely that the latter had abdicated before then; see p. 54. According to
Feridun’s Miinseat, Osman was appointed by a firman of Alaeddin Kaykobad III dated
683 [1284], but the text is almost certainly false; to begin with the then Sultan was Giya-
siiddin II Mes’ud. The second date represents virtual independence as the Selguk Empire
collapsed; but see p. 6, n. 2.
5 Osman probably abdicated about 1320; see p. 54. He seems to have died between
Sept. 1323 and March 1324; this date is fixed by reference to the ‘Aspor^a Hatun’un
vakfiyesi’ and ‘Orhan Bey ’in vakfiyesi’ — see Uzun^arfih in Belleten , 19. 277 and 34. 207.
6 For the identification of Bala and Mai Hatun, and their respective children, see Uzun-
£ar§ili, O.T. i. 26, n. 1.
7 Osman’s children are studied by Uzun^ar^ih in Belleten , 19. 277, on the evidence
of the ‘Aspor9a Hatun’un vakfiyesi’.
8 Dam^mend, O.T.K. i. 19, and Uzun^ar^ili, O.T. i. 32, make it clear that this man must
not be confused with Alaeddin Pa?a, the vizir. For his family, see I. A. i. 284.
9 For the names of Qoban and Hamid, see p. 122.
10 Uzun9ar§ih, O.T. i. 32, n. 1, says that von Hammer, on finding ‘Pazarlu Bey’ in
Cantacuzenus, turned it into ‘Pasa Ali Bey’, and made it equal to ‘Alaeddin Bey’. But the
same author, in Belleten , 19. 283, says they were possibly identical.
11 Uzun9ar§ili, O.T. i. 22, n. 2, and t.A. ii. 379, quote from Yazicizade’s Selfukname, a
story of Ertugrul meeting Giyasiiddin Kayhiisrev and offering him a younger son of
Osman I as a servant (hostage?) and of the latter being given a ‘timar’ at Yigmik, near
Kahta. When Bayezid I marched on Malatya, this son’s descendants — Ahmed, Bayat,
and Halil — claimed relationship.
164
X
X
w
h-3
cq
<
E-
* . o
cQ O'
P r*
1
4) M
£ c 3
w u CQ
rrT C yi
iflCt) l_
o 2 ^oo
B
C . - 1 — '
«W w
U . w
N OC
3 vC 00
C — vO w
£ 'Mom
« oT3 72 *5 .,
^T3.hOO
w iS "cgf'
ufflO^D
2S
‘ 2 ts
fe
A
£
s
S3
<
ffi
Cd
O
« s &
Sci_2
%J- N 5 l, ^ o
cl
M 3 >>
ox2i
- M rt ~ ir>-
"O £ £>2
3 ^
o£
l/^ ,
7
•_ <
s
CT 3 -, r-i
z rg^s
1; rt Soo N ro
S’O ooo n H
M X S3 3 2 Ji 4“
Sx^-v 2
4 W'O . *-
' 3 «<Q
Q.^n
^50
t
d
C£X
O <$
r>
cQ
c
r rt
;
Si|s§|
H £ o
uy N m
a . «n ©>
C-sf'f'
>, . •
5 w c
n
txj n
VO C
-> 0 “ H * —l —
»TI £ - in
H ^ ©
^i*r
to So
- «X Ti-oo
*o 3 cv Tj-
C/2 I- *-
1 1
M E 1-
o^r sj >*>
- m sq
r^'T so
^ S3 ^
- UO— X ■ ,
M «Z
'-SE
* * 1 ) U M '
in v. u u c O
m m +J o<u .5 so
„ <(U G +S
; c Z l
J£ 3 ,2P
c
r T3
£ c
B ^
CQ -
c .
3 —
<o *
fflO
<U N
.§D
S OJ
o*
i/i3
*n C
m ‘3
3^ c £
^ C^OO
- ■« w u -3 h io
s 0 ^ js ° §230 £
a l I. £ « «
2 «m 2
^ w 3 +J *->^
x oin ,£ *r3
r: vc -* .„^o
tg I — *«J=!
55 n C tr* u ji
•3 rr>i~ ^ S
■C ” C 3 22
O J-o
_ w «. 4 >
^ «-s
3 C ” ^
* 05 'V "rj
a C
eo « *"• Cu C a
*- u « 53 S e
**- a2 « ® §
^3 M CO “5 "O c
-s ° £
.S 3
a;
¥ il.s'
;4S^
"o £
o 2
cc't
go
c; l.
.*2 o
a; OX « 3^
n X -*-* X J 53 3
®2 CQ ** 3 to
£ c >v^T 3 ’?
£ <U <_. -3
o --X V 2 ►*
"3 X 3 O cU
'SsJll-SS
(io-SfH ee.273
{^; &..> 3 x ,«
O a_> .3 O C cn -*- 1
i-t u, C a»
- > 3 6C 2d
"o® t: "x
£ ffl » c 5 o
•gx
.SO
"C ^
“ g c
t> w «
£ S.fe
... rt t£
*3<*S r-
x 4. 2
£ X
“ W M
^ ^ CQ
a; _c 2^
** » CQ
&SS
> CQ CQ
*•26
■s §£
* CQ
Sf = £
o .S
x
JS • sOh 3
•§ vc £ £f g a
5j J72-S i S
t) « 5 a o u
c (U ^ 05 w 4)
&.> « 4> CQ <3
« ix^ X X 4-»
iftS.sl?
05 ■ Cm *“» ..
O C 4 > CO
c r * o c M >.
ctq ♦* 3 c «
j>vq t: K. “
wrvj'SS *S
c v- «ca
Cv' ««
C3 ’ll ^JC.S
’"^Sec
re £■£•= nffl
SS £ £
o ^ tlx S
i=l 2 l 1
®Z o g 1
-; c ~£.2
? p ^ j=
s^3-
. _>< »o l-o 9 s
e > x s .^«Sc
4 >C coXcO^r*
^ CQ !>-£}” 3 CQ C
"^X !
£22
41 w
4 >
^X
"x
et P
•“■S « i; d c i e
O £ g S t- w
w ^.2 c « .-o-g
sjjg^^Co
- t» 2 ® n *; cq +■»
ii«rt o-» O C' ”'
it>5
Table XXIII. MURAD I and his Family
1581 1582 ? 1041
Haci Alaeddin Ali Mehmed II — Incu
(Bengi) (Emir, 1398) (v. xxv)
D. 827 [1424] 826 [ 2 -H 23 ]
NOTES ON MURAD I (Table XXIII)
1 See Table XXII, n. i.
2 See Table XXII, n. 3.
3 Various dates from 15.6 to 27,8.1389 are given for the Battle of Kosova; Gibbons,
174, n. 2, and E.W.H. y 324, give 20.6.1389, but Atiya, Nikopolis, 5, prefers 15.6.1389.
Note that Zambaur gives 792 [1389], while E.I. i. 684 gives 791 [1387], both wrong
concordances.
4 Dates as early as 771 [1370] are also given; in many marriages such discrepancies
probably represent the period between the original marriage contract and the actual
marriage ceremony. This marriage was a symbol of the submission of the Bulgarian king-
dom, which took place in 1370.
5 See Gibbons, 160 and 173. She was of the Balsha family.
6 See Uzunfar^ih, O.T. i. 70, n. 1.
7 See Taeschner, in Oriens , vi. 1, 25, and Oz, in T.V. i. 4. 243.
8 There is great confusion as to the identity of Nefise and of her husband. Kramers,
in E.I. ii. 750, and Zambaur, Table O, n. 30, speak of Nefise, daughter of Murad II
marrying Alaeddin AJi Karamanoglu in 788 [1386] (or 783 [1381]), when Murad II was
not born. In E.I. iii. 728, Kramers says she was daughter of Murad I, and so does Zam-
baur, 160, n. 4, where he calls her Nefise Sultan, and marries her to Alaeddin Ali’s father
Alaeddin. But on the same page Zambaur notes Sultan Hatun, daughter of Murad I,
marrying Alaeddin Ali’s grandfather Alaeddin Halil. From all this it seems clear that
Nefise was the daughter of Murad I; w ere she the daughter of Murad II (bom 1404), she
could hardly have married Alaeddin Ali (died 1424). From the inscription on the ‘Hatun-
iyye medresesi’ at Karaman, it is clear that the w’edding took place at least in 1381, if not
earlier. There is no direct proof, but it is probable that Nefise Sultan and Sultan Hatun
were one and the same person, and that she married Alaeddin, the son of the then Emir,
Alaeddin Halil. See also Dam§mend, O.T.K. i. 65.
167
Table XXIV. BAYEZID I and his Family
1595
Suleyman^
Germiyanoglu
(Emir, 1377)
D. 789 [1387]
1605
John
(Hungarian)
1596 8
Mutahhare
Sultan
80 6
Angelina (1)=
8z 9
Devlet§ah=
D. 814 [1411]
783
[1381]
3 70
Murad I^Gul^i^ek
BAYEZlD I
(Gazi, Yildinm) 1
B. c. 761 [1360] 2
Ac. 791 [6.1389] 3
Dp. 804 [28.7. 1402] 4
D. 805 [10.3. 1403] 5
1590
Lazar I 1591
Grebelyanovich=pMilitsa Bulco
(Serbian Krai, 1367) [
D. 791 [15.6.1389] j
/ 792
1565 .
Constantine
(v. xxiii. 75)
8 4 6
Maria (A) (1)=
86/D.=
c. 774
[i 372 ]
8 i 7
-Despina
[ I 39°] (Maria, Olivera)
1600
Isa
Aydmoglu
(Emir, 1348)
D- 793 [i39i]
c* 793
[i 39 i]
83
^Hafise
1610 1611
Louis Fadrique=pHelena
(Count of Salona)
D. 784 [1382]
I
c. 795 85 10
(3) Maria (B)
[i 393 ] L>. 796 [1394], ex.
Cantacuzenus
1540 1541
John V=j=Helena
Paleologus
(v. xxii. 510)
791
Cantacuzenus
V[i 389]
^87/D.
530 ”
Ertugrul
B- 778 [1376]
D - 795 [1393]
i6i5 12
‘Zeches’
53 i n
Hasan
, S3 2
Isa (A)=
(Emir)
D. c. 807 [1404]
805
1620
John
Tunteres
[1402]
-1621/D.
533 4
Isa (B)
534 535
Kasim Korkud
Yusuf
B. 792 [1390]
D. 820 [1417]
f
i625 Ib
Orhan
D. 857 [29.5.1453]
(81)
536 17
Musa (A)
5 D.^805 [1402]
Mehmed I
B. 791 [1389]
f
537 18
Musa (B)~
(Emir)
c. 811
1630
Mirchea, Great
(Pr. of Wallachia)
D. 821 [1418]
D. 816 [5-7-1413], ex.
[1408]
=i 63 i/D.
D.
538 19
Mustafas
(Diizme)
B. c. 782 [1380]
f 804 [28.7.1402]
(825 [1422], ex.
1635
Ahmed
Celayir
(ilhan)
c. 802 ]
= i 6 3 6/D. 20
[1400]
(Eng.)
539
Omer
1643
Mehmed§ah
540 21
Suleyman:
(Emir) [10.1402]
D. 813 [17.2. 141 1] ex.
1640 1641
John Theo-— D. (of Nerio I
dore Paleologus Acciajuoli)
D. 810 [1407]
805
-1642/D.
1030 816-
Fatma —
1660
Ali-ul Hiiseyni-ul
Bohara
-1655/S.
[1413] (Sancakbey)
1031 24
Hundi=
^805
[1402]
1 6 4 4 2:
Orhan
D. 825 [30. 12. 1421] ex. D. 832 [1429]
1645
Suleyman
B. c. 826 [1423]
D. 841 [1437]
1650/D.
1651 16
Orhan (?)
D. 857 [29.5.1453]
AO
1646 23
Hundi
B. r. 825 [1422]
D. 859 [ 1455 ]
1647
=Esref Barsbay
(Mameluke Sultan)
D. 841 [1438]
1661
=§emseddin
Mehmed
($eyh Bohara)
B. c. 767 [1366]
D. 833 [1429]
1032
Pasa MeleL
1665
Celaleddin
Islam
—>805 1666
- ••••• gemseddin
[1402] Mehmed
1033/D. 25
1662
Ali
(Emir)
1663/DD. (2)
1648
(2) =Zahir Qakmak
(Mameluke Sultan)
D * 857 [13.2.1453]
1649
(3) =Barsbay Bucasi
\ (Emir)
1670
Celaleddin
Miran^ah
1671
Abubekir^
805
(Mirza) [1403]
D. 81 1 [1408]
-1034/D.
1 The title ‘Yildirim’ was gained at the Battle of Konva, 1386.
2 See Table XXII, n. 1.
3 See Table XXIII, n. 1.
4 This is the date of the Battle of Ankara given by Arabshah, 184,
and accepted by Iorga and Uzunyar^ih, O.T. i. 166, n. 1.
5 Uzun^ar^ih, O.T. i. 170, and Koprulu in Belleten, 2. 591, and
27. 591, both accept the theory that Bayezid committed suicide, as a
result of depression.
6 Argote de Molina (the first editor of Clavijo), in his ‘Discurso’ to
the Editio Princeps of 1582, states that with Timur’s ambassadors to
Henry III of Castile were sent two Christian women found in the harem
of Bayezid I. One of these was 80/ Angelina, a Greek, who subsequently
married Don Diego Gonzalez de Contreras; the second was 84 '"Maria,
daughter of a certain Count John of Hungary, who became the wife of
Don Payo Gomez de Soto Mayor — see Clavijo, 340.
7 8 1 /Despina is the only wife named as having been captured after the
Battle of Ankara; for her sufferings at the hands of Timur, see p. 93. Her
eventual fate is not known.
8 1596/Mutahhare Sultan, daughter of Sultan Valad, was a grand-
daughter of Mevlana Celaleddin Rumi — see Akyurt, in T.T.A.E. iii. 127.
9 Also known as Sultan Hatun, though I. A. ii. 369, says it is not certain
they were the same person; in any case the mother of Mehmed I was
Devlet Hatun, who was buried in 1031/Hundi Hatun’s tomb at Bursa.
10 85/Maria had been engaged to both the younger Rocaberti and
Stephen Doukas c. 1385, before being captured by Bayezid I. ‘The
Sultan murdered the fair young countess, considering a descendant of
Aragon and Byzantium unworthy of his embraces.’ Miller, \V., 347.
11 §ukrullah, in Uzun9ar$ih’s O.T. i. 58, says that the mothers of all
Bayezid ’s sons were slaves (‘kimak’), but this was certainly not true of
Mehmed I’s.
12 Given thus by Ducange, quoting Leunclavius, n. 59.
13 Leunclavius, 14, says he was very young at the time of the Battle
of Ankara.
14 Chalcocondyles, i. 85, says there was a younger Isa, who turned
Christian.
15 Sent by 540/Suleyman as a hostage to Constantinople, along with
his sister 1030/Fatma. von Hammer, ii. 195, says he was blinded.
16 There is much confusion as to the identity of this prince. Dani$-
mend, O.T.K. i. 229, says son of 534/Kasim, while Mirmiroglu, 12, n. 1,
makes him a grandson of 540/Suleyman, i.e. 1651 Orhan. See Murat,
‘Orhan’, in R.T.M . v. 3033.
17 See Kepcioglu, V.D. ii. 409, and Uzunyar^ih, O.T. i. 182, n. 1.
This Musa was buried with his grandfather.
18 Uzun9ar$ili, O.T . i. 182, n. 1, says he died 816 [10.8.1413], and was
buried with his father.
19 He died either at the Battle of Ankara, 1402, or by execution in
1422 — it depends whether the later Mustafa was real or a pretender;
see p. 50.
20 Her father had fled before Timur and taken refuge at Bursa.
21 See Wittek, in Belleten , 27. 577, and n. 28. It is very difficult to
decide who his children were. Also Uzun9ar$ili, in Belleten, 68. 521.
22 With his sister, 1650/D., he was a hostage in Constantinople ; was later
captured and blinded by Mehmed I, given Geyve Hisar, and died of plague
in Bursa. See Uzungai^ih, O.T. i. 54, and in Belleten , 68. 524.
23 See Uzun9ar§ih, ibid. Her real name was probably Fatma; ‘Hund’
indicates she was one of Barsbay ’s ‘Hundat’ (official wives). By <>kmak
she had four sons, the eldest Ahmed, who all died of plague, 853 [26.3.
J 449 h this second marriage ended in divorce, 854 [25.12.1450].
24 She is named in the ‘Emir §emseddin vakfiyesi’, dated 15 Receb,
874, contained in ‘Maliyeden miidevver vesikalar’, No. 162, 1, in the
‘Basbakanhk’ Archives in Istanbul.
25 Von Hammer, i. 339, speaks of a plan to marry a daughter of
Bayezid I to Ladislas of Naples; nothing came of it. But the idea is inter-
esting as being the only occasion on which a sultan’s daughter was offered
to a Christian.
Table XXV. MEHMED I and his Family
4 82
BAYEzio I— Devlet?ah
1680
Suli
Dulkadirli
(Emir, 1386)
D. 800 [5.1398], ass.
MEHMED I
(Qelebi, Giire^i,
Kuriis^i, Pehlivan)
B. 791 [1389] 1
Ac. 816 [5.7.1413] 2
D. 824 [26.5.1421] 3
c. 807 90 4
=Emine
[1404]
1683
$adgeldi
Ahmed P.
I
55 °
Ahmed
B.— >805 [1402]
D. 832 [1429]
5Si
Kasim
D. 809 [1406]
(90)
9< 5 *
=§ehzade
Hatun
552
Mahmud
B. c . 816 [1413]
D. 832 [1429]
* 553
Mehmed
B.-^8 c>5 [1402]
D.^818 [1415]
6
Murad II
B. 807 [1404]
^ 554
Mustafa
(Ku^iik)
B. 814 [1411]
D. 827 [12.1423], ex.
555
Yusuf
B. c. 817 [1414]
D. 832 [1429]
1690
Mubarizzeddin
Candaroglu
(Emir, 1402)
D. 843 [26.2.1440]
1043“ 1691
Sel^uk (B) = Ibrahim II
D. 890 [25.10.1485] (Emir, 1440)
D. 847 [5.1443]
( 1043)
827
1695 10 /
Kasim I (1)- r-r/ — '
Kavameddinl [i424]D. c. 848 [1444]
D.~>855 [1451K
1044/D.
1700
V. A. Ibrahim
Candarli
D. 832 [25.8.1429]
828 1701
i045/D. 11 ==Mahmud
(Hace) [1424] Qelebi
D. 848 [11.1444]-
1040
Hafise
1580
Alaeddin
Karaman
(v. XXIII. 1020)
1041 7 1582
Incu=Mehmed II
(Emir, 1398)
1042 8
Selfuk (A)=
829
B. c. 81 1 [1408]
D. 826 [2.1423] D. c. 890 [1485]
[1425]
,1685
-Karaca £elebi P.
(§ehit)
D. 848 [10. r 1. 1444]
J
c. 830 1705
1 046/D. - — — “Ibrahim
[1427] (Emir, 1424)
D. 868 [16.8.1464]
c. 828 171 5
1 047/ D .== Ali
[1425]
I
1692
Kemaleddin
Ismail
(Emir, 1443)
D. c. 864 [1460]
(v. XXVI. 1051)
(1043)
l
c. 848
(2) — 1052/D.
[1444] (v. XXVI)
(1046)
(1046)
_( 1 046)
1693
Kizil Ahmed
(Emir, 1460-62)
D. 886 [i 4 8i]->
I
1694
Mehmed
(v. XXVIII. 1080)
(1046)
(1046)
100
Hadice
(v. xxvi)
1706
Alaeddin
D. 870 [1466]
1707
Karaman
1708
Kasim
D. 888 [1483]
1709
Mehmed
D.^867 [1463]
1710
Nure Sufi
1711
Pir
Ahmed
D. 879 [1474]
/_
\
1716 c. 828
Isa—. 1048/D.
[1425]
(10 46)
r
1712
Siileyman
124/D.
(v. xxvi 1)
122/D.
(v. xxvi 1 )
Damsmend, O.T.K. i. 84, lists dates from 1375 to 1390; a fairly late one is preferable
because Mehmed was Bayezid’s youngest son, and the latter only married Devletsah in
1381.
2 Note that Mehmed only became sultan when he had put an end to the ‘Devr-i Fetret’
by his defeat of 537/Musa.
3 He was the first of the sultans whose deaths were kept secret until the successor had
taken possession of the throne. The extreme precautions taken by the Grand Vizir
Bayezid Pa§a were due to the presence and activities of 538/Mustafa and 554/Mustafa,
both pretenders to the throne. Arabshah, 187, says that Mehmed I died, ‘of poison
secretly given to him by Kucakar among the presents of A 1 Malik Muidi*.
4 Some writers put the marriage just after the Battle of Ankara, but it is unlikely to
have taken place in the hour of defeat. Probably the betrothal was arranged at the time of
Bayezid’s conquest of Dulkadir in 1399, and the marriage concluded when Mehmed had
re-established his fortunes. Damsmend, Zambaur, and Babinger (in Der Islam , xxix. 222,
3 ) say Emine was a daughter of 1680/Suli Bey, while Yinan?, M. L„ in LA. iii. 659-60,
says her father was Nasreddin Mehmed. 3 ’
5 See Babinger, Mehmed //, io.
° f Mehmed I’s sons given by Solakzade, &c„ which include ‘Alaeddin,
Hasan and Orhan seem to be confused with the sons of Murad II. 550/Ahmed, 552/
s^e UzHn9a^di!ar U i U 288 ere b mded by Murad 11 {c ' T + 2 °) and died of P la g ue at B ursa';
l See 1 'yazici Defteri, 18 (in the Basbakanlik Arsiv)
8 See Dam?mend, O.T.K. i. 361. '
9 See Zambaur, 149.
10 See Danismend, O.T.K. i. 232.
She WC , nt *? Meklca anddied there. Mahmud’s grandfather, Kara
Halil Hayreddm Pa?a, was related to i50o/$eyh Edebali.
Table XXVI. MURAD II and his Family
1691
Ibrahim II
Candaroglu
(v. XXV. 1043)
(100)
560
Ahmed (A)
(Buyuk)
B. 823 [1420]
D. 840 [5.1437]
561
Ahmed (B)
(Kugiik)
B. 854 [11.1450]
D. 855 [18.2.1451], ex.
1730
Abdullah
I 1050
1731 ( (i)=Fatma
Zaganos I
Mehmed P. <
D. 864 [1460] hi
^(2)=Anna
Comnenus
(v. xxvxi)
1732 126/D.
Ahmed (v. xxvii)
(Jelebi
5 90
Mehmed I=Emine
IOO 2
Hadice (1)-
(Halima) [1421]
102 4
Huma=
D. 853 [9.1449]
104/D. 6
824 \ MURAD II
(Hiidavendigar,
Koca)
B. 807 [1404]
Ac. 824 [26.5.1421]
} Ab. c. 848 [1.12.1444] 1
Ac. 850 [9.1446]
D. 855 [8.2.1451]
IOI J
=Hundi Hatun
D. 891 [14.2.1486]
(101)
839
103
=Mara
[4.9.1435] B. c. 823 [1420]
D. 892 [14.9.1487]
(102)
1725
§adibeyzade
Mahmud^ah
842
562 7
Alaeddin Ali
B. 833 [1430] [1439]
D. 847 [6.1443]. ex.
I
1727/SS. (2)
B. c. 846 [1442]
D. 847 [6.1443], ex.
1 726 s
:Yeni
563
Hasan
D. c. 848 [1444]
1720
George
Brankovicff
(Serbian King, 1427)
D. 861 [24.12.1456]
1721
Irene
Gomnenus
D. 861 [3.5-1457]
Mehmed II
B. 835 [30.3.1432]
564 9
Orhan
D. 855 [9.2.1451]
565/S. 10
D.902 [1496]
169O
Mubarizzeddin
Candaroglu
1691 1043
Ibrahim II=j=Selguk
! (v.xxv)
| 844 1692
1051 /D.===Kemaleddin
[1440] Ismail
(Emir, 1443-61)
D. c. 884 [1479]
1695 i
Kasim c, 848 |
Kavameddin (2) — 1052/D.
(v. 1044) [i444]
Koca Sinan P.— 1053/D.
D. 891 [i486]
1738
Haran
I 1739
1 o 54/D. II =Mehmed
1740. c. 875
Isa B.~ 1055/D. 12
[8.1470]
1735 1736
Hasan Yahya
(v. xxvii. 1063)
1 Authorities such as von Hammer, Dam§mend, and Zambaur all
give different dates for the Abdication and Second Accession of Murad.
The most recent study is that of Babinger, in Oriens , hi. ii. 229, and
Mehmed II, 45-64. The sequence of events is described on p. 55.
2 Babinger, in Oriens, II. i. 2, gives this early date; Dam^mend prefers
827 [1424] and others give even later dates. For the discrepancy, see
Murad I, n. 4. Whilst most authorities say Hadice was the daughter of
Ibrahim, Zambaur gives her father as Mubarizzeddin. After Mehmed II
came to the throne, he forced Hadice to marry ishak Pa§a, Beylerbeyi of
Anatolia.
3 She was really only Mehmed IPs nurse. See Babinger, Mehmed II, 22.
4 Relying on the inscription on the ‘Hatuniyye Turbesi’ at Bursa,
most authorities agree that 101/Hiima was the mother of Mehmed II,
but there is great disagreement as to her identity. Most Turkish writers
say she was of Turkish blood, as in Damsmend, O.T.K. i. 202, while
Babinger, in Der Islam, xxix. 218, says she was a foreign slave. All the
theories are discussed by Babinger, in Mehmed II, 21-22, where he says:
‘Wer des Kindes Mutter w r ar, ist bis zur Stunde in Dunkel gehullt.*
This very uncertainty suggests that she was not of high Turkish birth,
otherwise her family would have been recorded. In any case, when con-
sidering the early life of Mehmed II, it must be remembered that only
the accident of the deaths of two elder brothers — 560/Ahmed and 562/
Alaeddin Ali — brought him within reach of the throne. Further, Murad II
much preferred these two sons to Mehmed, as is clear from his will;
see Babinger, Mehmed II, 63.
5 That Mehmed II sent her back to Serbia at his accession is taken as
proof that she was not his mother. Owing to the disturbed state of that
country she returned to Turkey c. 1458. Babinger, in Oriens, II. i. 1,
declares she w*as childless.
6 Von Hammer, iii. 224, says she was related to George Balsha, son of
Stracimir, and was later sent home to Epirus.
7 Babinger, Mehmed II, 36, tells of the murder of Alaeddin Ali and his
two sons by Kara Hidr Pa$a, on the orders of Murad II, but the reason
is not known.
8 See Babinger, in Oriens , ill. ii. 234, n. 19. But in Mehmed II, 25, he
speaks of Yeni marrying Murad II.
9 Giese, 252, speaks of an Orhan, elder brother of Mehmed II and a
hostage at Byzantium, but this was more likely to be 1625 /Orhan.
10 Chaleo condyles, 163, says: ‘Un autre fils qu’il [Murad] avait par la
fille de Spender . . . Calapin [Qelebi] lequel s’etant fait Chrestien fut
nomm£ sur les Fonts Calixte Othoman.’ This also sounds rather like
1625/Orhan, or else one of the sons of 1774/Murad.
11 See von Hammer, ii. 360.
12 According to Angiolello she appears to have been a mad sadist; as
Babinger, Mehmed II, 342, says, it would be interesting to know whether
she was a full sister of Mehmed.
fiI5)
Table XXVII. MEHMED II and his Family
6 102
Murad II==Huma
1745
Paolo Erizzo
(Gov. Negroponte)
D - 8 75 [7-i47o]
no 4 857
Akider
\
1 12
Anna (B)
[5-I4533
875
D. 875 [1470], ex. [7.1470]
114 8
Esmahan=
1755
Suleyman
Dulkadirh
(Emir, 1443)
D. c. 858 [1454]
1 16 -^-853
Gul§ah===
D. 878 [1.1474]^ [1449]
D - 857 [1453L ex. [5.1453]
\
7
MEHMED II
(Ebu’l Feth, Fatih,
Gazi, Hiinkar)
B. 835 [30.3. 1432] 1
A c.c. 848 [1.12.1444P
Dp. 850 [9-1446]
Ac. 855 [3.2.145 1]
D. 886 [3.5.1481P
Comnenus
(Emp. Trabzond, 1458-61)
D. 868 [1. u. 1463], ex.
1742 1743
David =p Helena
Cantacuzenus
D. c. 867 [1462]
T 7°5
lbrahim
I20 13 853
Sift
Karamanoglu
(v. xxv. 1046)
(iviurkiiHlc 1 • —
D. 871 [4.1467] [9.1449]
1709
Mehmed
1
1 855
T is
[1451]
1731
Zaganos
Mehmed
XXVI. 1061)
[
T?a/n 15
124/1^/.
1 857
1 26/D. 17 (2)=—
Ci453l /
864 in 5
=( 1 ) Anna (A)
[1460J (v. xxvi. 1050)
”3 7
— Qi^ek
D - 903 [5-I498]
1748
Abdullah
^850 1 15
-Gulbahar, V. S. 9
[1446] D.— *898 [1492]
862
1 J 7
=Helen
(113)
(1 16)
BayezId II
B 851 [1.1448]
1770 570 ls
Sevired= Cem.
B. 864 [22.12.1459]
D. 900 [25.2.1495]
[10/1458] B. 845 [4.1442]
d -- >8 75 [1470]
866 119 12
=(2) Maria
[1462]
860
121
=Tamara
[1456] B. 845 [1441]
859
r
[2.1455]
854
=I23/D.
\ [12.1450]
571 19
Mustafa
B. 854 [1450]
D. 879 [25.12.1474]
572
Xu redd in
125/D. 11
1060
Ay§e
i774 20
Murad
D. 929 [24.12.1522], ex.
I
1778
Oguz
B. r. 885 [1480]
D. 887 [12.1482], ex.
1780
Seyfeddin Kaytbay
(Mameluke Sultan, 1468)
D. 901 [1496]
a 5
D. 929 [25.12.1522], ex.
1781 c. 901
Nasir Mehmed :
(Mameluke Sultan, 1496) [1496]
D. 904 [1498]
-(1) 1779/D. 21
B. c. 879 [1474]
(2)-
c. 904
~ 1 782/S.
[1498] (Kotada)
(Eng.)
1776/S.
D. 929 [25.12. 1522], ex.
1777/DD. (2)
(3)-
909
1783
Bula\ir
Sinan P. ($ehit)
D. 918 [1512]
I
1784
=Mustafa B.
[1503] D. 959 [1552]-
1750
Demetrius 1751
Paleologus=j=Zoe Asan
(Despot: Morea
1449-60)
D. 875 [1470]
D. 875 [1470]
*753
Donno I
Gattiluzio
(Lord: Lesbos)
D. 859 [30.6.1455]
1758
George
Phrantzes
I
1760
Turgatir
(115)
, 1795
Ak-Koyunlu
Uzun Hasan
(Emir, 1453)
V- 8 3 6 [1433]
D. 883 [1478]
1062 1796
Gevherhan=pUgurlu Mehmed P.
| D. f. 882 [1477]
(ns)
1692
Ismail
Candaroglu
(v. xxvi. 1051)
i735 1064/D.
1063/0. = Hasan
1797
Ahmed Code
(Emir, 1497)
D. 903 [1498], ass.
(v. XXVIII. 1073)
8
Bayezid II
1785
Hah
1786 c. 885 580
Bulbiii=:AbduIIah
[1480] (q.v.)
581 c. S79 1787
Ahmed Nergissah
(q.v.) [1474]
1 See Babinger, in Oriens , n. i. 1, and Dam§mend, O.T.K. i. 199.
2 See Murad II, n. 1.
3 Mehmed was certainly suffering from a violent attack of gout, but
there is some suspicion that Al-lari Hamideddin poisoned him; see
Babinger, Mehmed II, 493, and Lewis, 563.
4 An attempt has been made to list not only the actual wives of Meh-
med II, but also all the women known to have been taken into his harem,
whether they remained there and received favour or not. Akide was
supposedly a Frankish girl captured at Constantinople; see von Hammer,
ii. 435> 527, and Evliya, i. 48.
5 Captured at Trabzond, Mehmed refused her and she was then
married successively to 1791/Zaganos Mehmed and Elvanbevzade Sinan
Bey; before the latter marriage she turned Aluslim.
6 Captured at the fall of Negroponte, she refused the Sultan’s advances
and was killed.
7 Was probably of Turkish origin, and had a brother, Dayi Ali Bey.
8 See von Hammer, iii. 194.
9 Whilst it is agreed she was the mother of Bayezid II, there is no
agreement as to her origin; Babinger, in Der Islam, xxix. 219, says she
was of ‘lowly Slav origin’.
10 She was offered to Mehmed II, but finally rejected, ‘for the Sultan
feared she might poison him*. Miller, W., 452, quoting from Greek
sources.
11 Knolles, 350, says she was captured at Constantinople and later
executed; see Babinger, Mehmed II, 514.
12 Captured at Trabzond, she was the wife of Alexander Comnenus.
13 Her story is studied very carefully by Babinger, in Der Islam ,
xxix. 217. There he expressly says that she had no sons and probably no
children at all, and gives the date of her death as 4. 1467, but in Mehmed II,
77, he gives 9.1486.
14 See von Hammer, ii. 436.
15 The sources disagree as to whether there were two wives, or one;
and if the latter, whose daughter she was. Dani^mend, O.T.K . i. 229,
says of Ibrahim, while von Hammer, iii. 142, says of Mehmed.
16 See Schlumberger, 4.
17 See Chalcocondyles, 176; she had been previously engaged to
Mehmed Mihaloglu.
18 For Cem’s attempts to become sultan, see p. 6. On the responsibility
for his death see Fisher, 47-49 and n. 135, where he says death was
natural, from pneumonia. Babinger, Mehmed II, 210, speaks of ‘lingering
poison’.
19 It is clear his death was natural; see Babinger, Mehmed, 400. How-
ever, Knolles, 41 1, has a story that he was executed for the rape of Ishak
Papa’s daughter, wife of Gedik Ahmed Pa§a. Babinger, ibid. 294.
20 Murad and his sons, 1775 /Cem and 1776/S., were captured and
executed by Suleyman I at the Siege of Rhodes.
21 Married to the Mameluke Sultan, at his death she was promised to
a member of the Kotada family. However, Bayezid II insisted on her
return to Turkey and she was given to Sinan Papa’s son, see Siirreva,
iii. 103.
Table XXVIII. BAYEZID II and his Family
1900
Alaeddevlet Bozkurt
Dulkadirli
(Emir, 14B0)
D. 921 [12.6.1515], ex.
7 H5
Mehmed II==Gulbahar, Y.S.
130
Ayse=
►87i\
1905
Nasuh
Karamanoglu
D.^918 [1512] [1467]
132
Glilruh-
r 34
Milhiirnaz-
136
§irin=
BAYEZID II
(Adli, Sofu, Veli,
Yildinm 1 )
1 B. 851 [1.1448] 2
(Ac. 886 [3.5.1481] )
Dp. 918 [24.4.1 5 12]
D. 918 [26.5.1512] 3
131 0
= Bulb(ll
(US)
(l3l)
133
= Hii&niisah
135
-Nigar
-137/D. 7
114)
571
Mustafa
(v. xxvi 1)
580 s r. 885 1786 1787 c. 879 581 9
Abdullah Bulbul Nergissah — - Ahmed
D. 888 [12.1483] [1480]
[1474] B. 870 [1465]
D. 919 [24.4.15 1 3], ex.
1910
Alaeddin
Ali
D. 919 [14.5.1513]
( x 37)
584
Mahmud
B. c. 881 [1476]
D. 913 [1507], ex.
1912
Kasim
B. c. 906 [1501]
D. 924 [29.1.1518], ex.
1917
Osman
D. 919 [24.4.15 13], ex.
1918
Suleyman
D. 919 [25.4.1513]
1919/D.
1914
§evh Haydar
B. c . 864 [4.1460]
D. 893 [9.7.1488]
l
918 i9 x 5
-Ismail I
Alcn.sah
B. 871 >467]
D. c. yih [1510]
(i34).
,583"
Korkud
B. 874 [147°]
D. 918 [3.1513]. ex -
I
1926
Av?e
1913
Murad-
D. 927 [1.1521]
[1512] (Persian §ah, 1500)
B. 892 [17-7*1487]
D. 930 [23.5-1524]
919 !
=i 9 i6/D.
[1513]
1025
Osmaiifah
B. c. 897 [1492]
D. 918 [16. 12.1512], ex.
(130)
1928 1929
Ferrahsad = Bali Mehmed Ef.
D. c. 980 [1572]
( L3 3_)_
585 13
Mehmed -
B. 880 [1475]
D.— >912 [3.1507]. ex -
1950.
Menlali Giray
(Knm Han, 1467)
D. 920 [1514]
t
140
-(1) Ayse
(v. xxix)
9
Selim I
B. 875 [1470]
586
^ahinsah
B. 864 [1460]
D. 917 [2.7. 1511]
l
1936
Emir
D. 918 [16. 12. 1512], ex.
1
1937
Musa
B. 896 [1491]
D. 918 [16. 12. 1512], ex.
1940
Orhan
D. 918 [16. 12. 1512], ex.
1941
1942*
!
1945 .
Ay§e = Mehmed B. = Han<;erIi
Fatma
D. 939 [1533]
1955
x 95! x 953
Alemsah Fatma Alaeddin
D. 963 [1556] D. 918 [16.12.1512], ex.
1956 1957
Mahmud Mehmed
B. 912 [1506]
D. 918 [16. 12. 1512], ex.
1958
Mustafa
1959
K. P. Guvey-
Sinan P.
D. 909 [1503]
1938
Osman
1070 14
=Ayse
D. 918 [1512]-
1939
Suleyman
1961
V. A. Davud P.
D. 904 [20.10.1498]
I
1943
Kasim
I
1944
Mustafa
i960
Mihrimah
1071 894 1962
Fatma— — • Mustafa P.
(Sofu) [1489] D. 930 [1524]
(137)
1072
Gevheri-
1952
Osman
(i35> .
(131)
Muluk j
D. 957 [1550] i
1964 15
V. A. Ahmed P.,
Dukaginzade
D.921 [4.3.1515], ex.
I
1965
- Mehmed P. t
Dukaginzade
D. 964 [21. 1. 1557]
1073
H ad ice:
1796
Ugurlu Mehmed,
Ak Koyunlu
895 1797
— Ahmed
(Aymsah) [1489] Gode
(v. xxvn. 1062)
1966
Ahmed
D. 964 [i557]
1967
1968
1973
Nesli§ah= Iskender B., Zevneddin
D. 987 [1579] Dukaginzade
D. 990 [1582]
1974
Stephen Vukchich —
(Kossarich)
(Duke: Herzegovina)
D. 870 [22.5.1466]
1074 c. 886 1976 16
Hundi — - V. A. Ahmed
D.— >-917 [151 1] [1481] Hersekoglu
B. 863 [6.1459]
1975
-Barbara
de Landshut
D. 923 [21.7.1517]
1982 IQ 75
Antalyali=Huma
Bah B.
D. 900 [1495]
1077
1985
Sel9uk=Ferhad B.
D.-^9i8 [1512] D. 890 [1485]
1983 1076 17
Ahmed P.==Ilaldi
I
1984
Sehzade
1986
Hiisrev
(Gazi)
B. r. 885 [1480]
D. 948 [18.6.1541]
1987
Mahmud
D.-^948 [1541]
1969
Mehmed B.
f 1992
1079 D.= Kara Davud P.,
Nisanci
D. 911 [1505]
1970
Mustafa B.
1988
Neslisah
1990 1078 18
Mehmed— Sofu
Hizir Aga j
1991
Mehmed B.
(§ehit)
D. 926 [24.8.1521]
(v. xxix. 1095)
1693
Kizil Ahmed
Candaroglu
1694 I
Mehmed^ioSo /D.
Mirza
io8i/D.=
894
[1489]
1977
Ali
^ 1998
-Nasuh B.
1978
Mustafa
1979
Aymsah
1980
Kamer^ah
1
1981
Mahdumzade
D. c. 917 [1511]
(v. xxv. 1043)
1999
Hiisrev B.
(Gazi)
D. 950 [1543]-
I
2000
Mahmud B.
2002
Rustem P.= 1082/D. 29
(Giizelce)
D. 946 [11.1539]
907 2004
1083/D. Yahya P.
[1501] D. 912 [1506]
1 C,"
2005 2000"
Ahmed B. Koca
Bali P.
D. 932^1526]
2007
Dervis B.
D. 957 [i55o]
1084/D.
>903 2011
- Yakub P.j
[1498]
1994
Mustafa P.
D. 972 [1565]
1995
§emsi Ahmed P.
D. 988 [1580]
I
1996
Mahmud P.
D. ioi 1 [1602]
2008
Mehmed P.
D. 958 [i55i]
2009
Mehmed
Arslan P.
D. 974 [3-8.1566], ex.
907
2012/S.- " 1085'D.
(Egyptian [i5°i]
Mameluke)
1 Bayezid II was known by this title, inherited from Bayezid I, particularly among the
Persians; see Unver, 3, n. 2.
2 Babinger, in Der Islam , xxix. 217, gives reasons for this date.
3 See Fisher, m; a dervish had tried to assassinate him in Albania in 1493, ibid. 46,
n. 1 19. If Selim I had his father murdered, it was only in accordance with the rule that
there could not be two sultans in one empire.
4 For Bayezid II’s mother, see Table XXVII, n. 9 and n. 13.
5 Much light is thrown on Bayezid II ’s harem by the series of articles by Ulu^ay,
‘Haremden Mektuplar’, in Y.T.D.
6 See Uzun^arsili, O.T. ii. 233, and in Belleten , 16. 502.
' The name is not known, but she was the mother of 584/Mahmud and a daughter
Gevher, presumably 1072'Gevheri Muluk; see Ulu^ay, in Y.T.D. i. 251.
8 Bayezid ’s marriage policy is particularly important, as applied to both children and
grandchildren; see p. 88.
9 There is a great deal of confusion among the authorities as to the children of the
various sons of Bayezid; the names ‘Emir, Orhan and Musa’ appear as sons of 581 /Ahmed,
584/Mahmud, and 585/Mehmed, but rightly they only belong to 584/Mahmud.
10 Fisher, 104, says he died in 1503, but he was governor of Manisa from 1507; see
Uzun^arsiH, S.T. 119. Ulu9ay, in Y.T.D. i. 284, gives a letter from his mother to Baye-
zid II, telling how Alemsah was killing himself with drink. For his daughters, ibid. ii.
734. For his life, see Gokbilgin, in I. A. vi. 855.
11 Fisher, 106, says he was a full-brother of Selim I, and, therefore, son of i3° ^Y? e ’
12 It is not clear which of the daughters married Mehmed ; see Ulu9ay, in Y.T.D . 1. 207.
13 Fisher, passim , mistakes Mahmud for Mehmed; it was the latter who was governor
of Kefe, and so first husband of i4o/Ay$e. ;
14 See Ulu9ay, in Y.T.D. i. 338. She was a sister of either 581/Ahmed or 583/Korkud;
ibid. ii. 664.
15 His name suggests that he was descended from some Frankish prince, Duke John,
established in Albania.
16 For a detailed study of Ahmed, see Simsar. Von Hammer, iv. 19 and 43, suggests
that he first married a daughter of Mehmed II, but this is doubtful.
17 See Ulu9av, in Y.T.D. ii. 617.
18 This marriage and the identity of her son are doubtful; see Chalcocondyles, 297.
19 This is the origin of the ‘Kizil Ahmedliler’; see p. 15.
20 See Fisher, 17, n. 33, on the authority of Da Lezze (Angiolello).
21 The identity of 2011/ Yakub is not clear, but he was probably syo/Cem’s Lala ,
rewarded for betraying his master in 1481.
22 See Fisher, 93, quoting Malaverti in Sanuto.
23 His wife, probably a member of the dynasty, was accused of adultery; see Ulu^av,
in Y.T.D . ii. 698.
Table XXIX. SELlM l and his Family
195° .
Menkili Giray
(v. xxvm. 585)
8 130
Bayezid II=7=Ay$e
2015
Abdiilmu’in
2017
Hulefa
(Vali: Bagdad)
140 1 917
Ayse (2)=
9
SELIM I
(Yavuz)
B. 875 ]i47°] .
Ac. 918 [24.4.1512] (
D. 926 [22.9.1520]
142*
Taclu (2)=
920
[23.8.1514]-
( 141
= Hafise, V.S.
(Hafsa, Hatun)
D. 940 [19.3-1534]
(141)
(143)
= ( 1 ) I43/D. s
59° 4
Abdul'ai
920 [20.1 1.1514], ex.
59i 4
Mahmud
D. 920 [20.1 1. 1514], ex.
592 4
Murad
D. 920 [20.11.1514], ex.
10
Suleyman I
B. 900 [6.11.1494]
2029
Mustafa
(v. xxx. 1100)
2030
V. A. Kara 1090 203 2 5
Ahmed P. = (i) Fatma (2) = Ibrahim
D. 962 [28.9.1555], ex. D. 960 (Hadim/Tava§i)
[i553]- ~
203S
Yunus
j
2036 s
V. A. Ibrahim (2)-
.. 593
Uveys P.
D. c. 953 [1546]
D. 970 [1563]
(Frenk, Makbul, [22.5 ■ I 5 2 4]
Maktul, Pargali) 1
B. c. 898 [1493]
D. 942 [iS^-W 6 ], ex *
930 1091
=(1) Hadice
2040
Mehmed?ah
B. c . 931 [1525]
E>. young
I 2043
2042/D.— Mehmed
Aga
2044/DD. (2)
1964
V. A. Ahmed:
2051'
Iskender P.
D. 912 [1506]
917 1092 c. 928 2052
— — — (1) Hafise (2) ~~-' Bosnak
Dukaginzade P. [15 11] D. 945 [1522] Mustafa P.
(v. xxvm. 1072) [10.7.1538] I D. 935. [27.4.1529]
2053
Osman P.
(Kara Osmansah)
D. 975 [1568]
1093 2055
Sel9uk= Ferhad P.
B. c. 892 [1487]
D. 931 [1. 11. 1524], ex.
I 2060
1095/D.^K. P. Iskender P.
D. 921 [1525], ex.
i 99 i 915
Mehmed=
1094 8
$ahhuban^
2057
Abdiilmu’in
>936 2058
-V. A. Haci
($ehit) [1509]
(v. xxvm. 1077) I
,96/D. 1
D. c . 980 [1572] [1530] Liitfi P.
(Miiverrih)
D. 971 [28.3.1564]
2063
Osmansah
2064" ■ /ri
Mustafa P.= 1097/D.
D. 935 [4 * i 5 2 9J
1950
Menkili Girav
(v. xxvm. 585)
1099/D.
098/D.
2065
:Saadet
(Krim Han, 1524-3O
D. 944 [4*1538]
2066
Ahmed
2070
Giizelce=(2) 2060/D. (1)
Mahmud P. D. c. 1005
D. 1013 [1604] [6.1597]
2071
Ali
I
2072 12
V. A. Koca Sinan P.
(Yemen Fatihi)
B. c. 912 [1506]
D. 1004 [4.4.1596]
c. 1006 2073
2183 /D. = —Mehmed P.
2075 2076
Emine= Mehmed P.
1 She had previously been the wife of 585/Mehmed; this second marriage was contrary
to Bayezid II’s wishes, see Fisher, 107.
3 Wife of I9i5/§ah Ismail, she was captured at the Battle of (Jaldiran, and taken into
Selim’s harem for a while, but was then gi\en to Tacizade Cafer (Jelebi.
3 L zungarsili, O.T. ii. 383, n. 2, tells how 593, Uveys was a son of Selim I, bom from a
slave after he had given her in marriage to one of his lords — and never recognized as
being of royal blood.
4 Danismend, O.T.K. ii. 5, quotes Ahmed Tevhid (in T.O.E.M.) as speaking of a
tradition that Selim had these three sons executed just to make the way clear for Suley-
man I ; if so, it was a grave threat to the Succession.
5 As Erdogan says, in V.D. i. 33, it seems strange that Fatma should make a husband
out of this ‘adopted friend’ (‘Ahret arkada^i’), since by his titles he was a eunuch.
6 His first wife was Muhsine (D. 942 [1536]-?-), whom he does not seem to have put
away on marrying into the Sultan’s family. Recently some Turkish writers have cast
doubts on Ibrahim’s marriage to 1091 /Hadice; but the letters published by Ulucay, Ask
Mektuplan , 48-76, show conclusively that Ibrahim’s wife was a member of the dynasty,
even though — as he never actually names her — it is possible her name was not Hadice.
7 See Babinger, in Belleten , 65, pp. 73-74*
8 They were divorced on the grounds of Liitfi ’s cruelty; see p. 100, n. 1.
9 See Chalcocondyles, 380. , , ., ,
It is possible that this daughter was 1091 /Hadice, and that she was a widow when
she married 2036 Ibrahim. , , . , „ . .
n For this marriage see Surreya, iv. 372; rf * was completed, it seems that relations
with his father-in-law were very strained. .
It i s not clear whose daughter Sinan, a brother of Ayas Pa ? a, married. Surreya, iv.
316, suggests she was a granddaughter of 581 Ahmed.
Table XXX. SULEYMAN I and his Family
(151)
r
600
Abdullah
B. 929 [1522]
D. 932 [1526]
2090
Abdullah
D. 969 [25.9.1561], ex.
2085
Abdurrahman
9 14*
Selim I==Hafise
„ ’SO* \
Giilfem- ~ - 1
1 52® -^920
Mahidevran :
(Giilbahar) [1515]
D. 988 [3.2.1581] /
SULEYMAN I
(Gazi, Kanuni, Muhte^en
Sahib-i Kiran, Sahib-ul
Aseret-el Kamilet,
^ehit) 1
B. 900 [6.11.1494] 2
Ac. 926 [22.9.1520]
D. 974 [7-9*i566]
>926 151 4
=Hurrem
[1520] (Roxelana)
B. c. 906 [1500]
D. 965 [15.4.1558]
(151)
(ISO
1
i
601
Bayezid
B. 931 [14-9-1525]
D. 969 [25.9.1561], ex.
f
602
Cihangir (Egri)
B. 937 [i53i3
D. 960 [27.11. 1553]
1
603
Mahmud
B. c. 918 [1512]
D. c. 928 [1522]
I 1
2091 2092
Mahmud Mehmed
D. 969 [25.9.1561], ex. D. 969 [25.9.1561], ex.
1 1
2093 2094
Murad Orhan
D. 967 [1560] D. 969 [25.9.1561], ex.
1
2095
Osman
B. c. 964 [1557]
D. 967 [1560], ex.
2096?
Suleyman
B. 964 [1557]
2097 2098 2099
Ayje Hadice Hanzade
(i5 1 )
604 2101 6
Mehmed=(i) Ay a
B. 927 [1521] (v. xxxv. 202)
D. 950 [6.11.1543]
2103
Mustafa P.
I
2105 2102 r. 974 2104
Mehmed P.— (2) Humasah (1) . izzr:Ferhad P.
D. 1000 [8.1592] B. c. 950 [1543] [1566] B. 932 [1526]
I D. 982 [6.2.1575]
2106
Haci P.
D. 1036 [1627]
J
2108
Hasan B.
D. 1012 [1603]
2109
Husnii
605
Murad
B. c. 925 [1519]
D. 927 [10.1521]
(152)
606 7
Mustafa
B. 921 [1515]
D. 960 [6.10.1553], ex.
(151)
1 1
Selim II
B. 930 [28.5.1524]
2118 2119 2120 | 2122
Mehmed §ah~ Hasan 2 1 21 /D.— Mahmud
(Murad) Aga D. 985 [2.10.1577]
D. 960 [10.1553], ex.
2110
Ibrahim
($ehit)
D. 1010 [1601]
1
2112
Mustafa Aga
B. c. 975 [1568]
D. 1001 [1593]
I
D.
2113
Osman
(§ehit)
1040 [1630]
21 14
Suleyman
2116
Mustafa P.
2115 2117
Fatma — Mehmed B.
D. 996 [1588] D. 994 [1586]
2100
Mihrimah
B. c. 957 [i55o]
(15O
2029
Mustafa
(v. xxix. 1090)
1100 946
Mihrimah ~ —
B. 928 [1522] [11.1539]
D. 985 [25.1.1578] I
2126
:V. A. Rustem P.
(Kehle-i Ikbal,
Mekri)
B. c. 905 [1500]
D. 968 [11. 7.1561]
1 101/D.
D. 927 [17.10. 1521]
2146
Ahmed
B- c. 957 [i55°]
D. c. 979 [I57i]
21 45
1 ? Miiezzinzade
iio2/D.^=K. P. Ali P.
I D. 979 [7-10-1571]
1
2147
Mehmed
B. 967 [1560]
2127
Osman B.
D. 984 [1576]
2129 2128
V. A. Semiz~(i) Hiima$ah (2)
Ahmed P. Ay?e (Hace)
D. 988 [28.5.1580]
990
[6.4.1582]
2130 8
Teridun
Ahmed B.
(Ni^anci)
D. 991 [16.3.1583]
(2129) (2129)
T
2132
Hakani Mehmed B.
(Sultanzade, §ehit)
D. 1001 [20.6.1593]
Abdurrahman B.==2i37/D.
D. c. 1005 [1597]
2138
V. A. Mehmed
(Civankapiciba?i,
Sultanzade, Semin)
B. 1011 [1602]
D. 1056 [7.1646)
(2129)
2I 33
Mustafa P.
(§ehit)
D. 1001 [20.6.1593]
2139
Mahmud
D. 1052 [1-1643]
(v. xxxiii. 1143)
(21 29)
2134
Osman B.
D. c . 999 [1591]
2135 981 a ^2 1 36*
Saliha=- — V. A. Cigalazade
D. c . 974 [1576] [1573] Yusuf Sinan P.
B. c. 956 [1549]
D. 1014 [2.12.1605], suicide
2141
2140/D. = Hasan B.
1 Note that he was never known among the Turks by the titles used in Europe —
‘Great* and ‘Magnificent*. Wittek, in Byzantion , xviii. 323, says he was often called
‘Suleyman§ah’, borrowing from the legendary 4o/Suleyman$ah, supposed father of
44/Ertugrul.
2 Babinger, in M.O.G. ii. 165, gives this date, but Dani§mend, O.T.K. i. 400, prefers
900 [27.4.1495].
3 See Ulu^ay, Ask Mektuplan , 9.
4 See p. 93, n. 3, and p. 96, n. 1, for this marriage. Hurrem was almost certainly
Slav in origin, but nothing definite can be said of her parentage, in spite of many legends.
The very word ‘Roxelana’ is a corruption of ‘La Rossa* — the Russian.
5 See Kepcioglu, in V.D. ii, 405.
6 After 604/Mehmed’s death, she married Pertev Pa$a and a granddaughter of this
marriage, 202/D., became the wife of Osman II; see Roe, 20.
7 After his death there arose a Duzme Mustafa, see Dani$mend, O.T.K. ii. 296.
8 There is also a tradition that he married 1 1 10/Esmahan, but it is not very likely.
9 Shirley, A., 21, n., says he killed himself by drinking powdered diamonds.
Table XXXI. SELlM 11 and his Family
io 151
Suleyman I=fHurrem
1 1
160 c. 944 \ SELIM II
Kale= I (Mest, Sarhof, San,:
Kartanou [1537] 1 Sigir)
f B- 930 [28.5.1524]
162/D. 2 = Ac. 974 [7.9-1366]
D. 982 [21. 12. 1574] J D. 982 [15.12. 1574] 3
a 161 1 ^
=Nurubanu
610
Abdullah
. 982 [21. 12. 1574], ex.
611
Cihangir
D. 982 [21. 12. 1574], ex.
612
Mehmed
D. 980 [1572]
j
12
Murad III
B. 953 [4.7.1546]
613
Mustafa
D. 982 [21.12. 1574], ex.
614
Osman
D. 982 [21. 12. 1574], ex.
(162)
615 4
Suleyman
D. 982 [21. 12.1574], ex.
1110
2160 5 6 * c. 988 Esmahan
Kalayliko z— - (2) Gevher(i):=
969
Ali P. [1580] B. 952 [1545] [8.1562]
£>. 995 [1587] D. 993 [7-8.1585]
2161
Cemaleddin
Sman
(Sokolovich)
2162 s
-V. A. Sokollu
Mehmed P.
($ahin, Tavil)
B. c. 91 1 [1505]
D. 987 [12. 10.1579], ass.
(2160)
(2162)
(2162)
1
2163
1
2164
i
2165'
Mahmud
Hasan P.
Ibrahim (Han) P.
B. 993 [5.8.1585]
(Arslan,
B. 972 [1565]
D. 993 [24-9- I 585]
Vezirzade,
D. c. 1031 [1622]
Rum Beylerbeyi)
D. 1010 [20.4.1602]
2166
Mehmed B.
D. 1077 [7.1666]
2167
Ali
B. 1054 [1644]
D. 1127 [1715]
f
2x68
Bahir Ismail B.
D. 1164 [1751]
V
(2162)
I 2I 73
2172,/D.— Cafer P.
B. c. 929 [1523]
Fatma=
982
D. c. 988 [xi.1580] [1574]
2I 75 ..
:V. A. Kanijeli
Siyavu§ P.
D, 1010 [1601]
2180
Mehmed P.-
986
2x81
Abdurrahman
974
[1578]
x 1 x 2
=(2) Hace Gevheri Muluk (1)=
+ B. 915 [1544] [1566] D. 985 [21.x. 1578]
2182
-K. P. Pivale P.
2185
£akirciba§i
Hasan P.=
969
1113
=(1) §ah (2)
985
2 1 86*
Zal
2176
Mustafa P.
D
2177
Sinan B.
B. c. 983 [1575]
1007 [4.1599], ass.
2178/D.
D. 998 [1590]
c. 1006 2073
2183/D.: — - Mehmed B.
[1.1598] (v. xxix. 1098)
D. 981 [13.1.1574] [8.1562] B. 951
[i544]
D. 988
[9.1580]
[1577] Mahmud P.
B. c. 927 [1521]
D. 988 [9.1580]
i
2187 j
V. A. Cerrah— 1115/D. 9
Mehmed P.
D. 1013 [28.12.1604]
1 n6/D.~
c. 960 2l89 1(
=Kose Husrev P.
[i553] (§ehit)
D. 995 [1587]
1 See Rossi, passim , for the evidence that she was of the Venetian family Venier-Baffo.
2 Mother of 615/Suleyman, she committed suicide at her son’s execution.
3 See Dani^mend, O.T.K. ii. 420. But Uzun^ar^ih, O.T. in. i. 40, prefers 2. 12. 1574.
4 A Diizme Suleyman appeared and was executed in 1598.
5 He was forced to put away a previous wife.
6 He had to put away two wives before this marriage could take place. Pe$evi gives his
death as 30 Sept. 1579, but see Dam^mend, O.T.K. iii. 49.
7 The Ibrahimhanzadeler mentioned in connexion with the Succession were the
descendants of 2 165 /Ibrahim.
8 This marriage is said to have been a reward for the part he had played in the elimina-
tion of Selim ITs brothers.
9 See Fugger, 70.
10 Kose Husrev is given in Siirreya as ‘Damad’, but the identity of his wife is not clear.
Table XXXII. MURAD III and his Family
ii 161
Selim II =f Nurubanu
170
Fakriye=
MURAD III
| B. 953 [4*7 * i 54&] 1 .
173 97o ) Ac. 982 [15. 12.1574] \
Safiye V.S. | D. 1003 [16.1.1595]“
B. 957 [1550] [1563] |
D. 1014 [10. 11. 1605]
6 20 5
Abdullah
B. c. 993 [1585]
D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex.
A7 1
-Mihriban
172
^Xazperver
*74
-^ahhuban
-175/D. 1
I I
621 622
Abdurrahman Ahmed
D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex.
623
Alaeddin
Davud
D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex.
r | 1
630 631 632
Huseyin tshak Korkud
D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex. D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex. D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex.
I
633
Mahmud
B. c. 990 [1582]
D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex.
624 625
Alem§ah Ali
D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex. D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex.
(i73)
626
Bayezid
B. 994 [1586]
D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex.
I
627
Cihangir (A)
B. 993 [2.1585]
D. 993 [8.1585]
628
Cihangir (B)
B. 995 [1587] D.
D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex -
I
13 634
Mehmed III Murad
B. 973 [26.5.1566] D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex.
i
635
Mustafa
B. 993 [1585]
D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex.
1
636 .637
Osman Omer
D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex. D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex.
D.
629
Hasan
1003 [28.1.1595], ex.
638
Selim
B. 975 [1567]
1003 [28.1.1595], ex.
(i73)
639
Suleyman
B. 993 [2.1585]
D- 993 [1585]
640
Yakub
D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex.
641
Yusuf
D. 1003 [28.1.1595], ex.
642/S. 6
B. 990 [6.1582]
D. 990 [6.1582]
2190 1010 1120
V. A. Yemisyi: ■ ^=(2) Ay§e (1)=
994 2191
=V. A. Kanijeli
Hasan P. [5.4.1602] D. 1013 [20.5.1586] Ibrahim P.
(Meyvei) [15.5.1604] B. c. 930 [1524]
D. 1012 [16. 10.1603], ex. D. 1010 [10.7.1601]
| 2193 I
1121 1013 Quhadar c. 1024 1123
Fahriye==(i) Ahmed P. (2)- Fethiye
[1604] D. 1027 [1618] [1615]
(i73)
r , 1
2195 1010 1122 1002 2196 7 1124
Cafer P =^(2) Fatma (1) - ~K. P. Halil P. Hadice
D. 1018 [1609] [1601]
[6.12.1593] D. 1012 [23.12.1603]
2198
Mahmud B.
D. 1006 [1598]
(i75)_
1126 1013 2202 I
Mihrimah ~ Ahmed P. 1 127/D.
[1604] (Mirahor)
r 2199
(2) = Ni§ar Mustafazade
Mehmed P.
D. 994 [1586]
1125 A >
Hiirna \ 2200°
] (i) = LaIa, Kara
Mustafa P.
(Sokolovich)
D. 988 [7.1580]
1022 (
Cou rt -1128/DD. (7) 9
Officials [1613]
1129/DD. (17) 10
D. 1006 [1598]
1 Possibly he was a little older, see von Hammer, vii. 380. Salamone in Rosedale, 20,
says Murad died aged fifty years and a few months.
2 ‘On January 27th the new Sultan Mehmed arrived in Constantinople . . . eleven days
after the death of his father.’ Rosedale, 25.
3 ‘Safiye was with him for thirty-two years, during twenty of which he had no other
wife but her: moved however by the solicitations of the Queen Mother and his sister
(wife of the illustrious Signior Mehmed Pa§a) and finally by the people who said it
was not well that the kingdom should only found hopes on one son, he took so many wives
that their exact number is well nigh lost . . . many say there are over fifty.’ Salamone, in
Rosedale, 28. This was due partly to the rivalry between 161/Nurubanu Valide Sultan and
Safiye; another factor was that some of Safiye ’s children had died in infancy.
4 175 D. was a slave given to Murad by his son Mehmed III.
5 The number of his children is not known exactly, but the generally stated figure of
102 is much exaggerated; the different ‘Vakaniivis’ only record forty-six.
6 Fugger, 63, tells of a son who was bom and died during Mehmed Ill’s circumcision
feasts.
7 Halil was a member of the Paggi family of Ancona. They were so happily married
that, ‘she will not willingly let him leave her’. Marco Venier in Rosedale, 38. If his death
was so late, then 2 195 /Cafer ’s marriage must have been later, but both are dates given by
Siirreya.
8 He was previously married to a daughter of the Mameluke Sultan, Kansu Gavri.
9 This was a mass marriage of seven daughters.
10 These seventeen daughters are reported to have all died of plague.
. s a ? °°,S «
-»’ C g pJ .S *J 3
3 J 3 •'* 4 > c /5 4->
Si .*i « «,- So 2? g.
3 *.S 2 «
3 •*"! u c /5
fj 3 cfl > cj 'O “t— I
c ^ H -
3 3 t 3 ^ fa N ^<2
u 6 t % » » _g
§ x.sig o o «
jw «es 5
3 : -^|q O h *°
" . ■ j 3 ”* ® j 2 • >»
2 ^ i- 23 -o S |
£ w o v SI
i . £»SnJ £.5 S
3 TJ ^r S e O fl «
3 c°°i £ a £ ^
!«uQ 3 *j}J 3
^ D 4 )
S-rit|i?
»tC 2 S C< o -3
t'O ► C <U
1 *? o ^ c ^: -
2 l "| O <u ^ £ 3.
:co *3 r S ghi
2 »:s^H .2 u c
I IVijo £■£■£*£
i d=0 || § S .g
- "•= Ice'S SO
<L> cn- C *- >
2 r « « g ? *»
w « *3 CX *_>
169
Table XXXIV. AHMED l and his Family
13 180
Mkhmfd 111-— Handan, V.S.
190
Fatma =
1
AHMED I
(Bahti)
B. 998 [18.4. 1590] 1
192 > B. 998 [18.4.1590J 1
Mahfiruzc, V.S.= j Ac. 1012 [21. 12. 1603]
(Hadice) ID. 1026 [22.1 1 . 1617] 2
D. 1030 [1621] J I
(19O
(191)
(* 9 l )
1 91
Kosem Mahpevker, V.S.
(Anastasya)
B. c. 993 [1585]
D. 1061 [2.9.1651], ass
(192)
660
Bayezid
B. 1021 [10.1612]
D. 1045 [26.8.1635], ex.
661
Hasan
B. 1021 [25.11
668 /S.
B. c. 1024 [1615]
D. 103 1 [1.6.1622], ex.
662
Hiiseyin
1612] B. 1022 [14.1 1.1613]
D.—M026 [1617]
2220
150 c. 1051 Kugiik
18
iBRAHiM
B. 1024 [4.1 1. 1615]
663
Kasim
B. 1022 [1613]
D. 1047 [17.2.1638], ex.
664
Mehmed
B. 1013 [8.3.1605]
D. 1030 [12. 1. 1621], ex.
17
Murad IV
B. 1018 [29.8.1609]
B. 1013 [3
I
16
Osman II
Abides
=Musa P.
US*
Atike
[1641] D. 1057 [1647]
2236
All P.
D. 1017 [1608]
I
2237
K. P. Canpuladzade-
(191)
1040
Mustafa P. [1631]
D. 1046 [2.7.1636], ex.
2239 1073
Kundakgizade-
"(3)
Kanbur Mustafa P. [1663]
D. 1076 [1666]
1078
”(5)
B.
2241
Kozbevci-
Yusuf P. [10.1667]
D. 1089 [1678]
“( 6 )
(0
1043 2223
=Koca Kenan P.
(2>
[1633] D. 1062 [1652]
1062 2224
=Doganci Yusuf P.
2227
Haleb 1049
Ahmed P.~
\ [7.1652] D. 1080 [2.1670]
D. 1054 [11.1644] [1639]
2229
K. P. Vovnuk-
-(5)
-( 6 )
(19O
1 152*
Ay?e
B. 1014 [1605]
D. 1066 [1656]
I
. 1 1 .1604]
I
665
Selim
B. 1020 [27.6.1611]
D. 1020 [7.1611]
(19 O
666
Suleyman
B. 1020 [1611]
D. 1045 [26.8.1635!
667/S.
B. c. 1019 [i6ro]
D. 1031 [1.6.1622], ex.
Ahmed P. [3.1645]
($ehit)
D. 1059 [28.7.1649]
2231 1041
Murteza P. =(4)
D. 1045 [4.1636] [6.1632]
(3)=
1036
2228
=V. A. Hafiz
[13.3.1627] Ahmed P.
(Fiiibeli/Muezzinzade)
B. 971 [1564]
D. 1041 [10.2.1632], ass.
2230
“Karakas Mehmed
(1*
222S)
(Eng.) (§ehit)
D. 1030 [8.1621]
I
1021 2232° 1020 1156
(3) V. A. Nasuh P. (2) ^^ - ~Kdsem
[11.1612] (Gomulciineli) [2.1612] B. c. 1015 [1606]
D. 1023 [28. 10. 1614], ex. D. 1021 [3.1612]
1 1 53*
Fatma
1014 [1605]-
1033 2238
(1) = — ~K. P. Qatalcah
[1624] Hasan P.
(Div) D. 1041 [8.1631]
1035 2240
(2) r=rrKara
2234
Mustafa B.
D. c. 1037 [162S]
2245
Kara Htisevin
2246
V. A Kara=
=(1)
[1626] Mustafa P.
D. 1038 [25.12.1628], ex.
224 2
Yavuz Ozbey
Abaza
!
c. 1070 2243
(4) -— (2) V. A. Melek
[1660] Ahmed P.
(Tirnakgi)
B. 1013 [1604]
D. 1073 [1.9.1662]
(v. xxxvi. 1 176)
Mehmed P. [13.6.1612]
(Oguz, Okiiz)
B. 964 [1557]
I). c. 1029 [1620]
1154 4 c. 1032 2247
Gevherhan (2) — V. A. Topal
2249/S.
2250 1053
V. A. Sivavus P.=
D. 1066 [25.4.1656] [1643]
(3)
[1623] Receb P.
D. 1041 [18.5.1632], ex.
2248
Safiye
B. c . 1040 [8.1630]
D
„ 22 53 j
Kurt Aga j
2254 1032 1 155 1053 2255
V. A. Bay ram P. ■ =(1) Hanzade (2) — Nakkas
1048 [26.8.i638][g.i623] D. 1060 [1643] Mustafa P.
[9.1650] D. 1063 [1653]
ii57
Zeyneb
2257
5 8/D. = §ehit Ali P.
D. 1033 [1624]
1 Mustafa Safi Efendi, quoted by b zunearsih, < j 1 . in. *. 120,
n. 1, says Ahmed was bom yV* [ 1 588] .
2 Anonymous, CruautC , 4, gives 1026 [15.11.1017].
3 A strange story about this woman is told m Cki&tTan, 111 107.
4 This collection of husbands is u picul of a eniecrrh-
century custom of marrying daughters very young unu repeitcu iy.
on the death of the husband. For 1152 Ayse. 'ce G 1/, m 7 L\
i. 283. It has pro\ed practical)) impossible to sort ou r '■atisti. mnlv
the numerous marriages of the three sisters* 1154 Avse, 1 1 ‘ 5
Fatma, and 1154/ Gevherhan. All the available evidence wu*
collected and then arranged by dates in the in proh .ble »
5 Engaged to both 1156, Kosem and 1152 \yse, Xusuh maimed
neither; his various children must have been hv an e- -die! mai mige .
he was a son-in-law of Mir $erif.
Table XXXV. MUSTAFA I, OSMAN II, and their Families
180 *3
Handan, V.S. =t=Mehmed III
cd
U K*
N U <D*
oyo w
'-£'3
lh —
Q
E
<
t'Z'ZS
'O 1 • H
H ^ *
-h .ts 2 NO £ A
^JO «
4) re'"”' l— i
_vO> Zfi" — 1 t> ^ _ _
M S*"8g«
S c o m ~ o
C fl(S %* ft .
oSffKQQ
, a s
181
c *
0 - 2 *
8 ■£
N cu
N
so
ro
d
» 4*
~ Q cT
N
D
o
o to
SO «
— M C
W >>
• s s
Sto « t -
y t_,
- o *53
go*
CO _ j_
,H J) ii 'S
W O Jj
M C 3
1 -=J T>
* £
O ,50
■3 -tf B g
£ q s Jo
c> £ q
q to 41 «■*
Z< § 2
p § C a
.£3 %
qua”
4J jQ Q, c8
. w ,
to> o y
o JO £
so ^ 5
q :
a> a
<u o
«J <D
g SO
JO G N
^ U lO
<u £ .q
73 ° -3
.2 rt
JO
CS
o I
o -q o
-t^ g *» -
sO m
Wh o °
m'Q
jS 2> |
to 1 — 1
s 2 .£
S O «
£ ^ jo
to g *
P -S.S
g.a
cc , ♦
"6,
to
? to 3
^co §
§• to
‘ i
h
3 I
<u «
O <■*-* - ,
§Sl s
|« g*
g 4 S-X
3 j OX
-o Q ja
z x sg
. +** g, w ir 1
i *;; 4> -- 4>
i o D co o
: Cti cn g 02
i- - ’S-
5 W
-
.2 “t?
JO c
g c
to -O
S 5i
03 Cu
T3 3
U tJ
4> JO
*° O
"H-S
<y w
u 3 n ?
g cr-q ?
C J) H u
I £ I -fi
8 q*
& o
« O
rj ^
o 3
y .S C ”
la « ^ c
c3 ? a O
„ O' h u
c w O
O " N to
m3*' 1
u c r
TS:
. . »-•
so
> ^ m N O'
, so ^ so cn
■“ sO
<
tii
- »n<|
CO
D
Sn^S'S, r
hl w o « ?} i
QgoSoSj
• y JP* y a* •
n<CKQQ
M B
c-S
33 C
co C
y *q
C X
tt! <5
a •“*
4) TJ
3 cs
to x
T3 D
3 JO
4)
« j:
« .H
5|
3 w
C/3 V
2? c
C 2
O to
s £
«£ o
<j
CO O
5 ’ G *{ j
.^lie
r o d"
ti a
« >So e
c < X
^ « JO
lag
o
C & 2
*3
> u
n V ►«
o *3 ^
y to
g 2
1 w to
1 w 2
Sag S
“e 3 to Jo
S g
‘ s sf I
; 5 <♦< v
ca ^
' 2* £ m
l = ?
171
Table XXXIX. StJLEYMAN II, AHMED II, and their Families
N
H N
. H N
§
O
r>*
8>3 m
N <c 3 V
n bSG
w-0
tr> C' r ~'
H O'
^ M • O
,\0 N
Q ^ cn N
•a x^a-
tto'g
tO H O
0 M M
« <Q
o
4 <u >-<
« j2$ „•
cq
<
-4
o
■ N cn N
n S2
o
vO O
c 6 4
^ .5 to
4 CO .
H- rf-
o O
pqQ
o ^
.o J 2 ■?
£.2 iJS
« -f'O
«Q
172
1 This is the date preferred by l.A. and Dam$mend, but E.I. gives 1052 3 In 1703 there was a proposal to put him, rather than Ahmed III, on the
[1.8.1642]. throne; see T.K.S.M. Ar$iv Kilavuzu, I. vesika 10; also commented on in
2 Uzunfar§ili, O.T. ill. i. 546, says he was a full brother (‘Karinda?’) Belleten , 9.137.
of Suleyman II, but this is not true.
Table XXXVI. MURAD I V and his Familv
i+
Ahmed I
191
=Kosem Mahpevker, \
S.
680
Ahmed
B. 1037 [21. 12.1627]
D. —>1049 [1640]
I
681
Alaeddin
B. 1045 [26.8.1635]
D.— >1049 [1640]
682
JYIehmed
B. 1043 [8.1633]
D.— >1049 [1640]
17
3 — MURAD IV
(Fatih-i Bagdad,
Gazi, Sahib-i Kiran)
B. 1018 [29.8. 1609] 1
Ac. 1032 [10.9.1623]
D. 1049 [9.2.1640] 2
I
i
683
Suleyman
B. 1040 [13.2.1631]
D.— *1049 [1640]
684/ S.
B. 1043 [3.1634]
D. 1043 [3.1634]
1170—^1075 2265 1 1 71 1172
Ayse= Malatuk Esmahan Fatma
[1655] Suleyman P.
(Ermeni)
B. 1016 [1607]
D. 1098 [1687]
p
1177
Rukiye (A)
1173
Gevher
B. 1039 [1.1630]
1174
Hafise
ii75
Hanzade
1 176 4
Kaya=
Esmahan
B. 1042 [1633]
D. 1062 [1652]
I ' “
2270
Afife
B. 1055 [5.1645]
1054
2243
<i) V. A. Melek
[8.1644] Ahmed P.
I (v. xxxiv. 1153)
227 1 ;D.
B. c. 1062 [1652]
1 17c
Rukiye (B)"
1074
2275
=AIelek ( §eytan
D. 1128 [1716] [1663] Ibrahim P.
| D. 1097 [3.12.1685], ex.
2276
Avse
2277
Fatma=
1 1 10 2278
=Biyikh
D. H29 [1717] D. 1139 [1727] [1699] Mehmed
D. 1113 [1701]
2249/S.
1
228o 3
(San?) Hiiseyin P.=
D. 1099 [1688]
1
I
^1069 1179
-Safiye
[1659]
2281
Mehmed Rezmi
D. 1131 [1719]
D.
| 2283
2282 c, 1105 Muruloglu
Rukiye - -" (2) Gurcii Mehmed P.
1 108 [1696] [1694] D. 1108 [12.1696]
1 Siirreya, iv. 892, corrects the date given, ibid. i. 77; the correction itself is a misprint,
and instead of 1081 should read 1018, as is clear from the next correction.
2 Uzun^ar^iU, O.T. ill. i. 212, gives 7.2.1640 as an alternative; the date in l.A. (art.
Ibrahim) — 16 §ev. 1049 [8.2.1640] — is a wrong correspondence.
3 It is curious that none of the names of his wives seems to have been recorded.
2285
1 180/D.— K. P. Ammarzade
Mehmed P.
B. c. 1036 [1627]
D. 1058 [18.6.1648], ex.
1181 D.;
2287
Haci Sinan
1
1050 2288
~K. P. Tuccarzade
B. c. 1036 [1627] [1640] Mustafa P.
(Beycegiz)
D. 1051 [1641], ex.
4 The date of her death is not certain, but she is said to have died giving birth to
2271/ D. Kosem Valide Sultan had wanted her to marry Silahdar Mustafa Pa$a, but Grand
Vizir Kemanke$ Kara Alustafa Pa§a had opposed this. Uzun^ar^ih, O.T. 111. i. 215.
5 For his family see Uzun^ar^ih, in Belleten , 5, 6.199. He was the younger brother of
2250/Siyavu^.
Table XXXVII. IBRAHIM and his Family
(220)
Ahmed II
B. 1052 [25.2.1
2292
Muid Ahmed Ef
(§eyh-iil Islam, 1646)
D. 1057 [25.4.1647]
690
Bayezid
643] B. 1056 [1.5.1646]
D. 1057 [8.1647]
220
Hadice Muazzez=
D. 1098 [12.9.1687]
222
Poliye=
224
Sakizula=
226*
§ekerpare (1)=
D. 1058 [1648]
228 5 IO57
Telli : -
(Hiima§ah) [1647]
230 7
Zafire (2)=
14 191
Ahmed I^Kosem Mahpeyker, V.S.
18
IBRAHIM
(Deli)
B. 1024 [4.1 r.1615]
Ac. 1049 [9.2.1640] 1
Dp. 1058 [8.8.1648]
D. 1058 [18.8.1648]
I
691
Cihangir
B. 1056 [14. 12. 1646]
D. 1058 [1.12.1648]
232/D. 9 = /
(229)
l
19
Mehmed IV
B. 1051 [2.1.1642]
r 221-
~(i) Hubyar
223
= Safbagli
225 3
= Saliha Dilasub, V.S.
D. 1101 [5.11.1689]
227
— §ivekar
D. 1104 [1693]
229 s
= Hadice Turhan, V.S.
B. 1036 [1627]
D. 1093 [1682]
= (2) 231/D. 8
^ = 233/D. (Voyvodakizi)
2290
Handanzade
692
Murad
B. 1053 [4.1643]
D. 1053 [1.1644]
I
693
Orhan
B. 1058 [9.1648]
D. 1060 [1.1650]
694
Osman
B. 1054 [8.1644]
D. young
695
Selim
B. 1054 [19.3.1644]
D. 1080 [9.1669]
2295
Cafer P.
1056
D. 1057 [12.1647] [1646]
■(0
(229)
I
1 190 u
Atike (3)
(225)
20
Suleyman II
1052 [15.4.1642]
1
1
o.s.p.
1069
2297 c. 1058
K. P. T opal ' -.- - = (2)
San Kenan P. [1648]
D. 1069 [17.2.1659]
23 10
Sipahi
Mustafa
2311 1057
V. A. Ahmed P. (*>) - — — ■■■
Hezarpare [16.9.1647]
(§ehr?)
D. 1058 [7.8.1648], ex.
(v. 231)
2296
■(2) Mufettis
[ 1 659] Ismail P.
(§ehit)
D. 1076 [4.1666]
1065
1 191
- Avse
D.
2300
V. A. ibsir (2)-
Mustafa P. [28.2.1655] B. c. 1056 [1646]
B. 1016 [1607]
1065 [11.5.1655], ex.
ii93
Fatma
B. 1052 [9.1642]
(*)-
1056
2316
“-K. P. Fazil P.
[23.2.1646] (Fazlullah)
(Eng.) D. 1067 [1657]
io 55 2317
(1) K. P. Yusuf P.
[1.1645] (Musahip)
(Joseph Markovich)
D. 1056 [22.1.1646], ex.
/ 1056 2313
( 1 ) ~~ Ku^uk
[1646] Hasan P.
D. 1057 [1647]
1192 10
(2) Beyhan
(Bibi)
B. 1055 [1645]
D. 1112 [15. 12.1700]
( 3 )=
2314
~L T zun Ibrahim P.
D. 1094 [1683], ex.
1100 2315
(4) ^- - — ~ Biyikli Mustafa P.
[1689] D. 1 1 10 [9.1.1699]
1194
Gevherhan
B. c. 1052 [1642]
D. 1106 [27. ic. 1694]
—V1057
2320
(1) - =iK. P. Cavuszade
[1647] Mehmed P.
D. 1092 [5.1681]
1103 2321
(2) - K. P. Helvaci
[1692] Yusuf P.
(Palabivik)
D. 1126 [1714]-
2312
Baki B.-
J058
-1 197/D.
[6.8.1648] B. 1050 [1640]
(Eng.)
”95 1059 _ 2323
Kaya - — Haydaragazade
[10.1649] Mehmed P.
D. 1071 [6.1661], ex.
.. ”96
Urnmugulsum=
1064
2325
Abaza
[1653] Ahmed P.
(Mirahor)
D. 1067 [13. 11. 1656]
2327
Cerrah-
1077
Kasim P. [12,1666]
D. 10S7 [1676]
1 198/D. 1
1 It was almost impossible to convince him of his brother’s death* like
a ‘doubting Thomas’ he had to be shown the corpse. See Murad IV, n. 1.
2 After ibrahim’s death, she was married to a certain Ibrahim Pa?a,
son of Mustafa £aus.
3 Surreya says she died aged ninety, but it is hardly likely she would
have become a harem favourite at the age of forty.
4 Evliva says she was exiled to Egypt and married Kara Musa Pa?a
(D. 1059 [1649], ex.) after ibrahim’s death. She was Armenian, reputed
to weigh 150 kilos.
5 This was an official marriage, indicated by the change of name * see
p. 96.
6 She had a brother, Yusuf Aga, who died 1100 [1.1689],
7 See p. 53.
8 Originally the wife of 23 it Ahmed Hezarpare, she took Ibrahim’s
fancy; in return the Pa$a was given the Sultan’s daughter, 1192 Bibi.
9 Castellan, li. 65, says that Ibrahim wanted this girl, but her father
would not let her go, whereupon the Sultan kidnapped her from the baths,
and later sent her home!
10 Here again it is almost impossible to fit in all the marriages said
to have been made by 1190 Atike and her sister 1192 Beyhan. In Atike’s
case they may perhaps have been no more than a series of formal engage-
ments, which were broken for various reasons, for von Hammer, xii. 50,
says she was still a virgin at the end, and she seems to have died quite
young. Her name is sometimes given as Atiye.
11 She was offered first to 2338, Kuloglu Mustafa, but he refused the
honour at the time; later he was persuaded to marry 1202 Hadice.
(245)
23
Ahmed III
B. 1084 [31. 12. 1673]
I
I
Table XXXVIII. MEHMED IV and his Family
18 229
i brahi’ m =pT urhan Hadice, V,S.
240
Afife-
242
Giilnar=
244 1
Hadice=
D. ass.
19
MEHMED IV
(Avci)
B. 1051 [2.1.1642]
t Ac. 1058 [8.8.1648]
'Dp. 1099 [9. 1 r. 1687]
I D. 1 104 [6.1.1693]
_(245_)_
22
Mustafa II
B. 1074 [5.6.1664]
241
—Giilbeyaz
243
=Gunes
.245 2
=Rabia Giilnus
Ommetullah
B. c. 1052 [1642]
D. 1127 [5. 11. 1715]
700
Bayezid
B. 1089 [12.1678]
D. 1089 [1.1679]
2335 1121 2334
Sirke (1) - Rukiye
Osman P. [1709] D. c. 1132 [1720]
D. 1136 [1724] |
(v. XL. 1227)
70I 3
Suleyman
B. 1092 [13.2.1681]
D. young
2328
Topal Yusuf P.-
D. 1 128 [10.1716]
1109
[1698]
1200
-(2) Fatma (1)-
D. 1112
[6.12.1700]
c. 1107
[9-1695]
2329
-Tirnakgi Qerkes
Ibrahim P.
D. 1108 [2.1697], ex *
1201
Gevher
2331
Kuloglu
Suleyman Aga
2338 4 1086 1202 1102
K. P. Sankgi^ ' - ( 1 ) Hadice (2) —
Mustafa P. [23.6.1675] D. 1156 [1691]
(Musahip) [9-5-I743]
D. 1097 [10.1686]
2339
-V. A. Morali
Hasan P.
(Eniste)
B. 1065 [1655]
D. 1125 [12. 1713]
2336
Safiye
D. 1122 [1710]
2340
Abdullah
D. 1 in [1699]
2341
Ali
D. 1105 [1694]
2342
Asif
D. 1102 [1691]
2346
=Ahldc
]
1
I
i
2343
Hasan
D. 1095 [1684]
(241)
2345
2 347 5 1086 1203
V. A. Merzifonlu (2) - =Ku£uk
Kara Mustafa P. [6.1675]
(MaktuI)
B. 1044 [1634]
D. 1095 [25.12.1683], ex.
2348
Maktulzade
Ali P.
D. 1135 [11.1723]
(V. XL. 1226)
1204°
Cmmugulsun
1105 2350
-Ku^iik
D. 1132 [10.5. 1720] [11.4.1694] Osman P.
I D. 1139 [8.1.1727]
—1099 2335
1205 D -Kasim Mustafa P.
[1687]
I2o6;D.
2351
Fatma
D. 1113 [1701]
2352
Hadice
D. 1 in [1699]
1 Reputed to have been assassinated by her rival, 243/Gune?.
2 Also known as Retimo, she was a member of the Verzizzi family of Crete.
3 Von Hammer, xiii. 202, gives the story of a ‘Diizme’ Suleyman.
4 See Table XXXVII, n. 10. A fine description of this marriage is given by Covel, 23^.
Uzun^ar^ih, O.T. hi. i. 438, n. 1, confuses him with 2347/Mustafa.
5 He was also married to a daughter of Grand Vizir Mehmed Kdprulu. Siirreya,
iv. 402, says his father was Hasan Aga.
6 Surreya, i. 20, gives 1204/Ommugulsum (D. 1132 [1720]) as wife of 2350 Osman;
but ibid. iii. 427, his wife is given as Ommetullah (D.-^i 1 12 [4.1700]), of whom there is no
other mention. Similarly, 2351/Fatma is given two death dates: ibid. i. 20, says 1113
[1701], while ibid. i. 61, gives 1142 [1730].
7 This was probably a reward to the local governor — he was Pasha of Edirne — for all
the arrangements he had to make in connexion with Mehmed IV’s hunting expeditions.
See Covel, 168.
Table XL. MUSTAFA II and his Family
720
Ahmed (A)
B. 1 1 10 [14.4.1699]
D. mi [10. 10.1699]
(264)
T "
721
Ahmed (B)
B. 1114 [3.3*1703]
D. 1115 [8.1703]
260
AIicenab=
D. iiio [4.1699]
262
Hadice=
(Mahfiruze)
264 3
Hafise (1)=
B. c. 1094 [1683]
266
§ehsuvar, V.S.=
B.— >*1087 [1676]
D. 1169 [27.41756] .
( 265)
19 245
Mehmed IV=pRabia Giilnus
| Vmmetullah, V T .S.
MUSTAFA II
(Gazi) 1
B. 1074 [5.6.1664]
Ac. 1106 [6.2.1695]
Dp. 1 1 15 [22.8.1703]
/ D. 1115 [29.12.1703]
722
Hasan
B. mo [28.3.1699]
D. 1145 [5.1733]
723
Hiiseyin
B. iiio [16.5.1699]
D. 1 1 12 [19.9. 1700]
24
Mahmud I
B. 1108 [2.8.1696]
1107
B.
D.
[25.9.1695]-
263
— Hafiten
26 1 2
=(2) Anna Sophia
265
= Saliha, V.S.
D. 1152 [21. 9.1739]
( 264)
(26 4)
724
Mehmed
[i 10 [27.1 1.1698]
1115 [3.6. 1703]
I
725
Murad (A)
B. 11 14 [1702]
D. 1114 [1703]
(264)
726
Murad (B)
B. 1114 [3.3*1703]
D.1115 [29.12.1703]
(266)
Osman III
B. iiio [2.1.1699]
I
o.s.p.
(264)
1
727
Selim
B. 1 hi [7.9-1699]
D. 1113 [30.6.1701]
2360
V. A. Fazil
Mustafa Kopriilii P.
B. 1047 [1637]
D. 1102 [20.8.1691]
2361 4
V. A. Nu man=
Kopriilii P.
B. c. 1079 [1668]
D. 1 1 3 1 [28.1.1719]
I I 14 _I220 J
( i Y Ayse
[1702] (Biiyiik)
B. 1107 [10.4.1696]
D. 1165 [26.9.1752]
1132 ^ 2362
2365 1140
1221 s j
1 (2)
—Ibrahim P.
Muhassil —
(4)
Emine j
[1720] (Tezkereci)
Abdullah P. [7.1728]
B. 1 109 [1.9.1696] 1
)
D. 1134 [23.5.1722]
D. 1148 [4.1736]
D. c. 1152 [1738] I
)
1137 2363
2367
> /
(3) :
Koca
Kiz Husevin P.
1
[1725] Mustafa P.
1 '
1
V
D. 1140 [1728]
. 2368
j
Ibrahim P.
:(3)
1
D. 1136 [1724]
/
(1)
I (2) :
III5 2366
==-■ - V. A. gorlulu
[1703] Ali P.
(Silahdar)
B. c. 1081 [1670]
D. 1123 [12.1711], ex.
1124 2369
dReceb P.
[1712] D. 1138 [1726]
1222
Esma
1223
Fatma
D. mi [1699]
I
1224
Rukiye (A)
D. mo [1698]
Rukiye (B)
D. 1115 [24,12.1703]
2347
Kara
Mustafa P.
(v. xxxviii. 1203)
1
2348
Maktulzade*
1 1 14
1226
-(1) Safiye
<4)=
ii53 2376
-Alayali, Haci
[1740] Ebubekir P.
B. c. 1085 [1674]
D. 1172 [1.1759]
D. 1135 9.1723]
Ali P. [1703] B. 1 108 [13. 10.1696]
D. 1192 [15-5.1778]
(2)^-
138 2377
“Mirza Mehmed P.
[1726] D. 1140 [1.1728]
(3)-
2378
-Kara Mustafa
D. 1149 [1736]
2371
Bayezid
2372
Zahide=
B. c. 1136 [1724]
D. 1204 [6.2.1790]
2373
“Suleyman
2381
Kel Ahmed
D. 1150^1737]
2382
Haci Ali P.2
1227 1132 2335
Ummetullah= ■■ (2) Sirke
B. c. 1 1 12 [1700] [7.1720] Osman P,
D. 1139 [19.4.1727] I
H53
2380
“Heybetullah
D. 1183 [10.1769] [11.1740] B. 1137 [1725]
j D, c. 1 180 [1766]
2384
Diyarbekirli
Teyen Ali
2385
Nu’man B."
D. 1198 [1784]
2383
=Fatma
B. 1163 [1750]
D. 1216 [1801]
(v. xxxviii. 1200)
1
.. 2386
Ummetullah
D. 1157 [1744]
1228
Urnrniigulsiim
B. mi [10.6.1700]
D. 1112 [1.5. 1701]
1 For the story of how Mustafa obtained this title, see Uzun^ar^ili, O.T. in. i. 573, n. 1 .
It was given for his victories in the Balkans in 1696.
2 Anna Sophia von Wippach, wife of Ernst Wilhelm von Hanstein, was captured with
her son Heinrich, during the campaign of 1695, and was transferred to the harem because
of her beauty.
3 Was later married to the ‘Reis-iil Kuttab* Ebubekir Efendi (D. 1135 [12.6.1723]).
4 Gibb and Bowen, 1 10, n. 3, wrongly state that he was Grand Vizir from 1702 to 1710,
when actually it was from 16.6.1710 to 17.8.1710. Secondly, they state that his wife,
i22o/Ay§e, was the sister of Mustafa II when she was in reality his daughter.
5 1220 Ay§e is known as ‘Buyuk’ Ayse to distinguish her from the daughter of Ahmed
III, i24i/‘Ku9uk' Ay$e. The identity of her second husband is not certain.
6 Surreya gives Emine’s marriages to both 2368/Ibrahim and 2369/Receb, but obviously
they cannot both have been married to her over the same period. The most plausible
explanation is that 2369/Receb was only engaged and the arrangements were later changed.
Her fourth marriage to 2365/Abdullah is given in Tam^ik, i. 1 12, but it may be a confusion
with the marriage of 2366/gorlulu All's daughter with 2400/Muhsinzade Abdullah.
Tam$ik, ibid., gives i22i/Emine's birth as 1670, which is too early. Another daughter
of 2366 gorlulu Ali was the mother of 2382/Ali.
1229
Zeyneb
D. 1 117 [18.12.1705]
Table XLI. AHMED 111 and his Family
19 245 ..
Mehmed IV=f=Rabia Giilnus L mmetullah, V.S.
270
Buhari—
A>?e lMihri
(Hace)
272
Gulniis—
274
Hasansah=
D. 1146 [1733]
276
Mihri?ah—
(Mihrimah, Emine)
D- 1145 [1732]
278
Rabia §ermi=
280
§ahin=
D. 1145 [1732]
282
U mmuguisum=
D. 1182 [1768] )
AHMED III
B. 1084 [31. 12. 1673]
Ac. 1 1 15 [22.8.1703]
Dp. 1143 [1. 10. 1730]
D. 1149 [ii- 7 .i 736]
730
Abdullah
B. 1132 [18. 12. 1719]
D. 1132 [19. 12. 1719]
1
737
Isa
B. 1117 [23.2.1706]
D. 1118 [24.5.1706]
I
744
Murad (B)
B. 1119 [25.1.1708]
D. 1 120 [1 .4.1708]
[278)
l
27
Abdulhamid I
B. 1137 [20.3.1725]
738
Mahmud
D. 1170 [22.12.1756]
(276)
26
Mustafa III
B. 1129 [28.1.1717]
271
— Fatma Hiimasah
D. H55 [17423
273
= Hadice
D. 1124 [1712]
275
— II ate m
D. 1186 [1772]
277
— Musli
D. 1162 [1749]
279
= Rukiye
..281
Ummetullah
Banu
283
= Zeyneb
k D. 1170 [1757]
(276)
(277)
73i
Abdiilmecid
B. 1121 [12. 1 2. 1 709]
D. 1 122 [18.3.1710]
"Y
739 1
Mehmed (A)
B. 1108 [1.3.1697]
D. 1 1 15 [3.6.1703]
_ 745
Nu’man
B. 1135 [22.2.1723]
D. 1178 [29.12.1764]
732
Abdtilmelek
B. 1 12 1 [12. 12. 1709]
D - *123 [7-3.1711]
740
Mehmed (B)
B. IH7 [24.11. 1705]
D. 1 1 18 [30.7.1706]
746
Selim (A)
B. m8 [29.8.1706]
D. 1120 [25.4.1708]
2388
V. A. Topal Osman P.
D. 1146 [1733]
|
2389 1153
Gul Ratib Ahmed P.-
(2)
D. 1161 [8. u. 1748] [1740]
2392
Hantal Hafaf
I
.2393 1140
V. A. Istanbullu — =(1)
Mehmed P. [1727]
(Kunduracizade)
D. 1150 [1737]
1241
Ayse
(Ku?uk)
B. 1127 [11. 10. 1715]
1 D. 1x89 [9.7.1775]
(3)=
2390
Ahmed Kapudan
D. 1122 [1710]
2391
-V. A. Cihangiri
733
Ali
B. 1 1 18 [18.6.1706]
D. iii8 [12.9.1706]
74i
Mehmed (C)
B. 1124 [8.10.1712]
D. 1125 [15.7-1713]
(275)
I
747
Selim (B)
B. 1127 [21.3. 1715]
D. 1130 [2.1718]
1242
Emine (A)
D. 1132 [1720]
734
Bayezid
B. 1130 [4.10.1718]
D. 1184 [24.1.1771]
742
Mehmed (D)
B. 1129 [2.1. 1717]
D. 1170 [2.1.17563, ex.
(276)
748
Seyfeddin
B. 1140 [3.2.1728]
D. 1145 [1732]
735
Hasan
r- 736
Irrahim
B. 1132 [12.9.1720]
D. ii?3 [16.3.1721]
743
Murad (A)
B. 1119 [17. 11. 1707]
D. 1 1 19 [1707]
(276)
I
749 2
Suleyman
B. 1122 [25.8.1710]
D. 1145 [11. 10.1732]
2395
Lalazade=
1 172
(239O
r —
I
2394
:Rukiye (B)
[16.1.1758] Mehmed P.
(Silahdar)
B. 1122 [4.9. 1710]
D. 1202 [9.1788]
1243
Emine (B)
D. 1145 [1732]
2400 4
V. A. Muhsinzade
Abdullah P.
B. c. 1069 [1659]
D. 1162 [4.1749]
1 1171 1244
2401 ' -(2) Esma (A) fi)
V. A. Muhsinzade [6.1757] B. 1138
1245
Esma (B)
1156 2402
=Yakub P.
Nuri Mehmed B. [3.1759] D. 1194 [1780]
B. 1133 [1721] I
D. 1197 [14. 12. 1782]
..(25,93)
i
2398
Rukive (A)
Mehmed P.
B. 1 1 18 [1706]
D. 1188 [4.8.1774]
[14.3.1726]
D. 1202
[13-8-1788]
[2.1743] D. c . 1157 [1744]
2396
Ahmed Rif’at B.
D. 1218 [1803]
- |
2397
Suleyman B.
B. 1174 [29.4.1761]
D. 1201 [1787]
(270)
2403
Haci Hiiseyin
(Hasan) Aga
i
2404
V. A. Komurcu -
2405
Ali Aga
1247
Ferdane
D. 1 130 [1718]
1248
Hadice A)
B. 1118 [21 1. 1707]
D. 1 1 19 [21.1.1708]
1249
Hadice (B)
B. 1122 [8.2.1710]
D. young
1 246 5
=(1) Fatma (2)=
2406°
-Y. A. Nev-sehirli
D. ii 43 [ 30 - 9 -I 730 ], ex.
1240
Atike-
1136
B. 1124 [2. 1712] [6.3.1724] Mehmed P.
D. 1150 [1737] IX 1182 [16.6.1768]
Ali P. (Sehit) [14.4. 1 709] B. 1116 [20.2.1717] Ibrahim P.
B. c. 1078 [1667] [22.9.1704] B. c. 1076 [1666]
D. 1128 [5.8.1716] D. 1145
[3-1-1733]
l
2408
=Gen?
2407
Halil Aga
D. 1 123 [171 1]
(v. 1262, 1268)
2409
Mehmed B.
B. 1135 [3.1723]
D. 1150 [1737]
2410
241 1
Fatma— Mustafa B.
D. 1179 [1765] I
2413
2414
Hevbetullah= Mehmed B.
D. 1188 [1774]
2415
K. P. Kii?uk Osman P.
1
24 1 6 7
K. P. Hafiz Ahmed P.=
2412
Mehmed B.
(v. 1259)
[
1136
D. 1148 [12.1735] [1724]
(Eng.)
2418
Halil Aga^rr
36 1250
=(i)\ Hadice (C) (2) —
B. 1122 [6.3.1724]
) [27.9.1710]
D. 1 15 1
=(3) / [1738]
2417
Ali P.
N aile
B. 1137 [5- I 7^5l
D. 1139 [10. 12. 1726]
1252
Nazife
B. 1137 [5.1725]
D. 1178 [29.12.1764]
1253
Rabia (A)
B. 1132 [19.11.1719]
D. 1134 [1722]
1254
Rabia (B)
B. 1140 [30.10.1727]
D. 1 140 [4.4.1728]
2419
Sulevman
Izzi Ef
D. 1168 [4.1755]
2420
Koca Abdi P.
D. 1135 [13. 11. 1722]
2421
Giilec
Sarhos Ali P.=
1255
Rihane
D. 1132 [1720]
148
D. 1157 [5*1744] [1736]
2425
K. P. Tursu 1177
Mehmed P. =
D. c . 1184 [1770] [5-i764[
=(2)
Saliha
B. 1127 [21.3. 1715]
D. 1 192 [11. 10.1778]
(4)
(2427)
Y
2430
Ahmed
D. 1145 [1.1773]
•v i 2 6 3
L mmiihabibe
D. 1142 [1730]
(3)=
2423
Mehmed Sevki
2424
=V. A. Ragib
1 260
Ummetullah (A)
B. 1131 [1719]
1256
Rukiye (A)
B. 11 19 [22.4.1707]
D. 1 1 19 [8.1707]
1261
Ummetullah (B)
B. 1135 [17.9.1723]
D. 1136 [28.1.1724]
1257
Rukiye (B)
B. 1124 [7.3. 1712]
D. 1126 [1. 10. 1714]
2440
Qerkes
Osman P.
1258
Sabiha
B. 1139 [26.11. 1726]
D. 1139 [3.12.1726]
2407
Halil Aga
(v. 1246)
1136
[31.3.1758] Mehmed P.
B. 11 10 [1699]
D. 1176 [8.4.1763]
2426
Deli Hiiseyin P.
D. 1069 [29.12.1658]
2441 .. 1262
Ahmed B.= (i) Ummiigulsum (2):
B. 1 1 19 [1 1.2.1708] [6.1.1724] Ali P.
2442
Xev§ehirli
D. 1145 [1732]
(Gen?)
D. 1143 [i o -i730]
1140
2427
-San Mustafa P.
^ [5.1728] D. 1144 [1731]
2443
Hafiz
Mehmed B.
D. 1177 [1763]
2444
Haci
Mustafa B.
D. 1194 [1780]
(2427^
I
2431
Ayse
D. 1167 [i754l
1265
Ummuselma (B)
B. 1145 [1732]
D. 1145 [1732]
2432 1163 2433
Emine - -Ismail
D. 1228 [9.1813] [1750] Ziihdii P.
! D. 1217 [9.1802]-
2434
Yakub B.
D. 1256 [6.2.1841]
2412
(2427)
2437
Mehmed B. = Hadice
(v. 1246)
2435 . 2436
Fatma = Ibrahim B.
B. 1142 [1730]
I
1267
Zeyneb (B)
B. 1 1 2 1 [5. 1. 1710]
D. 1122 [7.1710]
2445
K. P. Findikli
Suleyman P.
D- 1145 [1732]
1264
Cmmiiselma (A)
D. 1131 [1719]
1266
Zeyneb (A)
B. 1 1 19 [11.2.1708]
D. 1120 [15. 10. 1708]
2407
Halil Aga
(v. 1246)
2446
V. A. Melek 1178 1268 10 1140 2447
Mehmed P. ~ - ~ (2) Zeyneb (1) —Sinek, Ku?uk
B. 1132 [1720] [1765] Asima [5.1728] Mustafa P.
D. 1216 [19.2.1802] D. 1188 D. 1177 [11.2.1764]
i [25.3.1774] J
1269
Zubeyde
B. 1 140 [18.3.1728]
D. 1169 [4.6.1756]
(2):
ri62
2450
=Nu’man P.
[6.1.1749] D. 1198 [1784]
(l):
1 161
245X
=Kara Alizade
[6.1.1748] Suleyman P.
D. 1161 [28.7.1748]
1 The dates are given thus by von Hammer, xiii. Genealogical Table
but it is unlikely that Ahmed III had a son before he came to the throne.
Notice the succession of sons given the same name as each one died,
see p. 121.
2 Von Hammer, ibid., wrongly gives his birth date as 1740; and
nowhere else is there any indication that there were two Suleyman.
3 See Table XL, n. 5. Her second husband was great-grandfather of the
poet Namik Kemal.
4 See Table XL, n. 6.
5 See an article by Refik, A., in R.T.M. iv. 2652.
6 Like 2366/^orlulu All, 2408 Nevsehirli Ibrahim was the head of
a ruling family which spread out all through the hierarchy.
7 It is not clear for what reasons this marriage was not completed.
8 Siirreya gives her death as 1137 [12.1724].
9 Here is another case where there seem to be too many marriages for
one princess; Almanach de Gotha even gives three others, but they
seem to be confusions with those giveh here.
10 Siirreya, iv. 510, says 2446/ Mehmed married the widow of 2447/
Mustafa in 1758, but ibid. iv. 439, says Mustafa only died in 1764.
Ibid. i. 37, he says she was born after 1728, which was her wedding year.
Table XLII. MAHMUD I, OSMAN III, and their Families
N
IT) I s
O' >-i 1
S M . M O
>
u
03
o
vO 3
o «
N
<
h
N <
« H
1 J ~
£ 'O
ca »h
p> l — 1
^ -h
« ON
O' O
n '-3
TJ
KQ
O' N
« ca
ffJ
G •-*
*0 - N
O ' ^3
N fc .
> Q
« -t
HI i
'O £
p_g ~ o 2
S hH C 3 n.1 — ***r
HH Ky< 1 1 ' 1
fO__
«<Q
glfX
w r-
£
N 4 > \0
_i_ c 3 O'
173
c o
S J2
s*»
G d
0 .2
> T3
In )-H
0> M4
■5 cf
o '■O
s «
.2 2
J3 .>
O'
PQ 00
Is
PQ
1|
•O N
<U >»
* £
* %
•fj "d
o i§
Ǥ 8.
c f *
0 ? ^
c > ^ ;
o sS!
e « TJ
|“>S
C/D Cfl
« g ®
.5 J3
D M «
IJ * S
r; sO 3
f*g
G ^
es TT
S U~i
OO
(fl (N
o
u *>
<u o
<£4 , l_l J
r* O'
•r» — 1 03
"O
G
>,
a
P3
e
lc
SO c -S
"J . G oj
£ £ o 8
g* N *g ~0
~ O' 3 *H
« , “ J -2 3
*- 00 C G
<U so C
m > > \
« *a-j
G In ‘
h 3 ;
« « n
*1j
<sie
a
Various dates, from 1696 to 1703, are given; this is the one given by
Table XLV. SELlM III, MUSTAFA IV , and their Families
Table XLIII. MUSTAFA III and his Family
2 3 276
Ahmed III^Mihrisah
310
Adil§ah— \
D. 1218 [1803]
312
Fehime=
D. 1174 [1761]
Mihri§ah, V.S.=
D. 1220^1 6. 10. 1805]
26
MUSTAFA III
B. 1129 [28.1.1717]
Ac. 1171 [30-10.1757]
D. 1187 [21. 1. 1774]
311
j' =Ayniilhayat
3 i 3
/ — Gulman (Giilnar)
I 3i5
— Rif’at
V D. 1218 [12.1803]
(314)
( 3 Jo)
760 28
Mehmed Selim III
B. 1180 [13.7.1766] B. 1175 [24.12. 1761]
E>= n8o [10.1.1767] I
o.s.p .
1290 1198 2455
Beyhan — Qelik, Perisan
B. 1179 [1.2.1766] [5.1784] Mustafa P.
D. 1240 [7.11.1824] D. 1213 [1798]
1291
Esma
B
2465
Mehmed Aga
1295 1172 2466
Heybetullah'===:V. A. Hamza P.
1172 [20.3.1759] [11.6.1759] B. 1140 [1727]
D - TI 75 [5.1762] (Eng.) D. 1183 [10.1769]
(3J 1 )
1296
Mihrimah
B. 1174 [1760]
D. 1177 [3.1764]
1297
Mihrisah
B. 1176 [7.10.1762]
D. 1182 [21.2.1769]
1292
Fatma
_( 3 J°)
2460
Suleyman P.
1293
1294 1202
1
2461
Hadice (A)
Hadice (B)
-Seyyid Ahmed P.
180 [15.6.1766]
B. 1182 [24.5.1768] [1788]
D. c. 1213 [1798]
D. young
D. 3237 [17.7.1822]
l
2462
‘ l
2463
Alaeddin P.
Osman P.
D. 1227 [1.1812]
D. c. 1224 [if
(V. XLIV. 1308)
2469
Yaghkgi, Haci
Yusuf Aga
D. 1123 [1711] —
1
2470 1 1 81
V. A. Mehmed —
Emin P. [1.1.1768]
B. 1136 [1724] (Eng.)
D. 1183 [12.8.1769], ex.
2471
Sufi Abdurrahman P.
D. 1127 [1715]
1298
(2) §ah
B. 1174 [20.4.1761]
D. 1217 [11.3.1803]
c. 1177 2472
| ( 1 ) - V. A. Bahir, Rose,
[1764] Mustafa P.
I (Eng.) D. 1 178 [29.4.1765], ex.
1192 Seyyid Ni^anci
I (3). ' "—^^ : Mustafa P.
V [5.1 1.1778] D. 1228 [1813]
2474
§erife Havva
B. c. 1 194 [1780]
D. 1194 [1780]
Ahmed Illy Rabia §ermi
Table XLIV. ABDULHAMID l and his Family
278
320
Ay§e (A)=\
D. 1198 [1784]
322 s
Ayse—
Seniyeperver
D. 1244 [11.12.1828]
324
Fatma=
fjebsefa
D. 1220 [1805]
326
Hiima§ah —
D. 1192 [1778]
328
Niikhetseza=
D. 1266 [4.6.1850]
330/D. =
D. 1244 [19.1.1829] j
27 321
ABDt)LHAMlD I 1= Ay?e (B)
B. 1137 [20.3.1725]
Ac. 1187 [21. 1. 1774]
D. 1203 [7.4. 1 789] 1
D. 1240 [1825]
77°
Abdullah
B. 1189 [1775]
D. 1189 [1775]
I
776
Murad
B. 1 197 [22.10.1783]
D. 1199 [21.2.1785]
771
Abdurrahim
B. 1191 [i777]
D. 1191 [1777]
(322)
I
29
Mustafa IV
B. 1193 [8.9.1779]
2475
Haci Selim Aga
D. 1203 [1789]
1302” 2476
Durru$ehvar=p Ahmed
(Ahretlik)
B.— *1 187 [.774]
D. 124, [5.1826]
Nazif Ef.
D. 1203 [21.6.1789], ex.
2478
Koca Yusuf P. !
D
. 1215 [6.1800]
1
772
Abdiilaziz
B. 1193 [1779]
D. 1193 [1779]
777
Niisret Mehmed
B. 1 196 [20.9,1782]
D. 1 199 [21. 10. 1785]
I 3°3
Emine
B. 1202 [5.1.1788]
D. 1205 [1791]
773
Ahmed
B. 1190 [8.12.1776]
D. 1192 [29.10.1778]
778
Selim
B. 1193 [i779]
D. young
I3°4
Esma (A)
1192 [2.8.1778]
D. young
323
— Beynaz
D. 1238 [5-1823]
325
— Hadice
^ D. 1222 [1807]
327 \
— Naksidil
B. c. 1180 [1766]
D. 1232 [22.8.1817]
329 *
= Ruh$ah
V (Ruh^an)
774
Alemsah
B. 1198 [11. 12. 1784]
D. 1200 [2.1786]
I
779
Suleyman
B. 1193 [I7-3-I779]
D. 1200 [19.1.1786]
(327)
30
Mahmud II
B. 1199 [20.7.1785]
I
i
1300
Avnisah
B. 1194 [22.7.1780]
D. 1 194 [1 1.8.1780]
1305
Esma (B)=
1206
2482 7
— K. P. Kiiciik
B. 1196 [5.6.1782] [29.5.1792] Huseyin P.
D. 1264 [4.6.1848] B. c. ii7i[i758]
D. 1218 [8.12.1803]
(3_26)
\
775
Mehmed
B. 1190 [21.8.1776]
D. 1195 [20.2.1781J
1301
Ay§e
B. 1191 [30.7.1777]
D. 1191 [8.9.1777]
1306
Fatma
B. 1197 [12. 12. 1782]
D. 1200 [13. 1 1.1785]
2477 2479
Atiyetullah== Mahmud B.
D. 1264 [1848]
(Molla)
D. 1240 [4.9.1824]
2481
Zeyneb
D. 1220 [1805]
2480
Ahmed Muhtar Molla Ef.
(§eyh-ul Islam)
B. 1222 [10.7.1807]
D. 1300 [22.12.1882]
J 3 0 7 1308 1216 2462
Hadice Heybetullah=r-=r:=iAlaeddm P.
B. 1198 [6.10.1784] B. 1203 [6.3.1789] [1801] (v. xliii. 1294)
D. young D. 1257 [9.10.1841]
1309
Melek?ah
B. 1195 [28.1.1781]
D. 1196 [24.12. 1781]
I
1310
Rabia (A)
B. 1 194 [20.3.1780]
D. 1194 [29.3.1780]
13 11
Rabia (B)
B. 1 195 [10. S. 1781]
D. 1196 [3.2,1782]
1312
Saliha
B. 1201 [30. 11. 1786]
I). 1201 [5.6.1787]
/ 3 i 3
Zeki\ e
D. 1202 [20.3.1788]
1 Baysun, in LA. i. 75, wrongly gives 1 1 Receb as equal to 28 March;
this is the correspondence for the year 1204 [1790], not for 1203 [1789].
The mistake is also to be found in Karal, O.T. v. 15, and other Turkish
writers.
2 Surreva says that she ruled as ‘Valide Sultan’ for a year and then
became a recluse. Tani^ik, i. 250, wrongly gives the date of her death
as 1782.
3 The theory set out in Morton, The Veiled Empress , and elsewhere,
to the effect that 327 Xak§idil Valide Sultan is to be identified with
Marie Marthe Aimee Dubuc de Rivery of Martinique, does not bear
examination. By courtesy of the late Dr. J. K. Birge — himself a believer
in the theory — this writer was enabled to see photostats of copies of the
documents on which Morton based his argument; careful collation of these
with the book showed that Morton had completely misused and even
falsified the evidence. Above all there is no proof whatsoever that Aimee
even reached Istanbul, let alone became Princess-Mother. The writer
hopes to publish a detailed study of this later.
4 For a series of letters from Abdulhamid I to this wife, see Uluyay,
Ask Mektuplariy 77-93.
5 770/Abdullah, 771, Abdurrahim, and 771 'Abdiilaziz should not have
been named as they were stillborn ; see Surreya.
b Born at some time before her father became sultan, her existence
was kept secret; the name ‘Ahretlik’ (Adopted) suggests that she was
smuggled out of the Sara\\ Surreya, i. 33. Her husband was executed by
Selim III. But Surreya, lii. 37, speaks of Ahtermelek Hamm (D. 1200
[1786]) as ‘Ahret Kenmesi’ (Adopted Daughter) of the Sultan; she
married Izzetpa^azade Said Mehmed Bey (D. c. 1226 [1811]).
7 I.A . v. 654; he was ‘sut-karde§i’ (foster-brother) of Selim III.
Table XLVI. MAHMUD II and his Family
27 327
Abdul ham id I=pNaksidil, V.S.
359 1 2 3
AIicenab=
361
Bezmialem, V.S.—
B. c. 1223 [1808]
D. 1269 [2.5.1853]
363
Fatma—
D„ 1223 [2.1809]
365
Husyar=
,367 y
Kerime= /
. 369
Mishnayab—
37i
Nuritab—
D. 1303 [1.1886]
373
Pertevnival, V.S.=
B. c. 1225 [1810]
D. 1300 [5.2.1883]
375
Tirval=
30
MAHMUD II
(Adli)
B. 1199 [20.7.1785] 1 *
Ac. 1223 [28.7.1808]
D. 1255 [1.7*1839]
/ 360
=Asubucan
D. 1287 [10.7.1870]
362
— Ebureftar
364
— Gulcemal
366
=Husnumelek
B. c. 1222 [1807]
36S 4
=Lebriz Fclek
D. 1281 1 13.2.1865]
370
— Nevifidan
(Nevifeda)
D. 1272 [25. 12. 1855]
372
— Perestev
B. 1217 [4.1803]
D. 1282 l i6.2.i866]
374;
=Perviz Fclek
D. 1280 ^21.9.1863]
376
— Zemigar
D. 1248 [1832]
!
(373)
1
(359)
1
1
(361)
|
800
Abdullah
D. 1235 [1820]
1
32
Abdulaziz
B. 1245 [9.2.1830]
V
1
801
Abdulhamid (A)
B. 1228 [28.1.1813]
D. 1240 [20.4.1825]
802
Abdulhamid (B)
B. 1242 [18.2.1827]
D. 1244 [1829]
3i
AnDtiLMECiD I
B. 1238 [23.4.1823]
4
803
Ahmed (A)
B. 1229 [25.7.1814]
D. 1230 [16.6.1815]
804
Ahmed (B)
B. 1234 [30.8.1819]
D. 1234 [1819]
1
805
Ahmed (C)
B. 1234 [13. 10.1819]
D. 1234 [1819]
806
Ahmed (D)
B. 1237 [6.7.1822]
D. 1238 [9.4.1823]
T~
807
Ahmed (E)
B. 1239 [12.1823]
D. 1239 [1823]
808
Bayezid
B. 1227 [27.3.1812]
D. 1227 [25.6.1812]
809
Kemaleddm
1
810 811
Mahmud Mehmed (A)
B. 1237 [18.2.1822] B. 1229 [26.8.1814]
D.— ^1244 t x 829] D. 1229 [1814]
1
812
Mehmed (B)
B. 1237 [18.2.1822]
D. 1238 [23.9.1822]
1 “
813
Murad
B. 1226 [25. 12. 1812]
D. 1227 [14.7.1813]
i
814
Nizameddin
B. 1251 [6.12.1835]
D. 1253 [2.1838]
815
Osman
B. 1228 [4.1813]
D. 1229 [10.4.1814]
" l
816
Suleyman
B. 1234 [22. 11. 1818]
E>. 1235 [15.12.1819]
(376)
1330 s 1261
A A,}**
2 A %3 .
Haci Omer Aga
1
2484
— V A 1Y/T phmprl
B. 1241 [23.5.1826] [12.6.1845] Ah P.
2486
Gani Mehmed P.
D. 1302 [2.1885]
2487
Ahmed Rifat B.=
D. 1316 [12.2.1899]
(1330)
1282
B. 1228 [1813]
D. 1285 [26.7.1868]
2488
Mustafa §erif P.
1283
2489
tykodralizade
2495 2496
Radosi Hafiz ==Saliha
Ahmed Aga
D. 1216 [1801]
2497 7
2498 1246 Radosizade
gemsinur -~ (i) AhmedFethi P. (2)
Hanim [11.1830] B. c. 1216 [1801]
D. 1271 [19.3*1854]
(374)
1256 1331
~Atiye
[8.8.1840] B. 1239 [11.2.1824]
D. 1266 [11.8.1850]
■■ ( 1 ) H ay riye(2 )-
B. 1260 [1844] [10.6.1865] D. 1286 [4.i867]Ali Riza B.
D. 1308 [10.5.1891] (Eng.) [26.7.1869] | D. 1316 [22.8.1898]
2490
Celaleddin P.
B. c. 1285 [1868]
(v. L. 1404)
1332
Ayse
B. 1224 [6.8.1809]
D. 1225 [1810]
*333
Emine
B. 1228 [1813]
D. 1231 [24.9.1816]
1334
Esma
2491
Mahmud
Edhem P.
D. 1303 [2.1886]
(v. xlvi I. 1366)
(363)
*335
Fatma (A)
B. 1223 [4.2.1809]
D. 1224 [5.8.1809]
1336
Fatma (B)
B. 1226 [19.4.1811]
D. 1240 [7.5.1825]
(2498)
(l33i)
(i_33i)
“I
2504
Mustafa P.
2499
Mahmud
Celaleddin P.
D. 1201 [7.5.1884], ass.
(v. xlvi 1. 1354)
(374)
1337
Hadice
B. 1241 [6.9.1825]
D. 1258 [19.12. 1842]
2501
Mahmud P.=
2500
=Feride
2502
Mehmed
Saib B.
D. 1288 [28. 11. 1871]
1338
H amide (A)
B. 1232 [17.7.1817]
D. 1232 [1817]
2503 1276 2505
Semye==Huseyin Husnu P.
B. 1263 [1847] [i860] D. 1316 [2.1899]
1339
Hamide (B)
B- 1233 [4.7.1818]
D. 1234 [1819]
1340
Hayriye (A)
B. 1246 [23.1.1831]
D. c. 1246 [1831]
(365)
i34i
Hayriye (B)
B. 1247 [12.1.1832]
D. 1248 [15.2.1833]
1343
Mumre
B. 1240 [16. 10. 1824]
D. 1240 [23.5.1825]
(360)
1344
Saliha-
1250
2510
-K. P. Gurcii
B. 1226 [16.6. 18 1 1] [24.5.1834] Mehmed Halil
D. 1259 [5.2.1843] Rifat P.
D. 1272 [3.3-1856]
(i344] !
1345
$ah
B. 1227 [23.5. 1S12]
D. c . 1227 [1812]
1346
Zeyneb
D. 1231 [181
2507
K. P. Mehmed 12
Said P. —
B. c. 1220 [1805] [28.4.1836] B. 1227 [9.6.1812]
D. 1285 [1868] ‘ D. 1254 [12.7.1838]
1342^
-Mihrimah
2511
Abdulhamid B.
B. 1250 [22.3.1835]
D. 1252 [1836]
2512
Asaf Mahmud
Celaleddin P.
B. 1270 [1853]
D. 1320 [18.1.1903]
(y. XL VII. 1371)
1 This is the date given in Siirreya; Karal, O.T. v. opp. 97, wrongly gives 1784.
2 For the identity of 327/Nak§idil, see Table XLIV, n. 3.
3 This list of wives comes largely from Tani§ik, i. 260 and ii. 308.
4 It is not clear whether 368, Lebriz Felek and 374 'Perviz Felek were separate indi-
viduals, or not.
5 On her mother’s death she was adopted by 370 Nevifidan. For further information
on Mahmud II’s daughters, see Giz, in T.D. i. 317.
b Inal, §airleri, viii. 1475; the first marriage was never completed.
7 For his family and work, see Oz, in T.T.A.E. v. 1 . He was a posthumous son, Surreya
says he died 1274 [1.1858].
8 She died in a fire at the Saray.
9 With the possible exception of Mustafa IV’s posthumous children — who would not
be born in the Saray — this Fatma was the first child bom to the dynasty for twenty' years,
and naturally there were great celebrations.
Table XLVII. ABDULMEClD l and his Family
30 361
Mahmud II^pBezmialem, V.S.
381
Duzdiidil=
D. 1261 [8.1845]
383
Gulustu/Guli$tan=
D - 1277 [5. 1861]
385
N avekmisal=
D. 1270 [1854]
387
Nesrin=
D. 1269 [2.1.1853]
389 1268
Nukhetseza
379 .. 31
Bezmi=\ ABDULMEClD I
(Gazi)
B. 1238 [25.4.1823]
Ac. 1255 [1.7.1839]
D. 1277 [25.6.1861]
B. 1242 [2. r. 1827] [10.6.1852]
D. 1310 [19. 12.1892]
39i 1258
Rusdik
B. 1239 [5.5.1824] [2.10.1842]
D. 1305 [31. 10. 1887]
393
Servetseza=
D. 1295 [24.9.1878]
395
§emsmur—
. .397 1857
Tirimujgan= - —
B. 1235 [16.8.1819] [10. 11. 1841]
D. 1269 [26.4.1853]
399
Zevnimelek=
D. 1258 [1842]
380
f=Ceylangar
D. 1272 [2.1856]
1250 382 1
• — Gulcemal
[27.3.1843] B. 1241 [1826]
D. 1269 [29. 11. 1851]
.3S4 2 .
= Nalandil
B. 1245 [1829]
D. 1308 [23.12.1890]
3 86
= Nergis
D. 1264 [1848]
_ 3^8 3
i = Neveser
D. 1306 [12.4.1889]
39°^
— Peres tu
392
— Serfiraz
— §a> este
1255 396
=^$evkefza, V.S.
[1.8.1839] B. 1236 [12. 12. 1820]
D. 1307 [20.9.1889]
393
= Verdicenan
B. 1241 [1826]
( D. 1307 [9.12.1889]
(397)
j
34
Abdulhamid II
B. 1258 [22.9.1842]
820
Ahmed
B. 1261 [1845]
D. 1261 [20.3.1845]
(398)
I
821
Ahmed=
1293
Kemaleddin [23.4.1876]
B 1263 [3.12.1847]
D. 1323 [4-4-1905]
1
2516
Munire=:
B. 1294 [22.2.1877] [10. 1. 1907]
2515 t 2517
=Fatma V. A. Tunuslu
Hay redd in P.
B. 1237 [1822]
D. 1307 [30.1.1890]
j
1325 2518
— ~~ Mehmed Salih P.
D. 1331 [24.6.1913], ex.
822
Bahaeddin
D. 1269 [9.11.C52]
823
Mehmed
Abdussamed
D. 1270 [5.1854]
I
824
Mehmed
Abid
B. 1264 [22.4.1848]
D. 1264 [28,4.1848]
[388)
825 s
Mehmed”
1289
2520
=Mestinas
Burhaneddin [4.5.1872] B. 1267 [20.9.1851]
B. 1265 [23.5.1849]
D. 1293 [3.11.1876]
D. 1327 [20.4.1909]
826
Mehmed
Fuad
B. 1264 [7.1848]
D. 1264 [29.8.1848]
(396)
i
33
Mehmed
Murad V
B. 1256 [21.9.1840]
827
Mehmed
Aizameddin
B. : 2.66 [19.4.1850]
D. 1169 [30.1.1853]
(382)
I
35
Mehmed V
Resad
B. 1260 [3.1 1.1844]
828
Mehmed
Riisdii
B. 1268 [31.3.1852]
D. 1268 [7.6.1852]
2521°
Ibrahim Tevfik
B. 1291 [24.9.1874]
(383)
I “
36
Mehmed VI
VahideddIn
B. 1277 [2.2.1861]
I
(392)
2525
Avse=
1314
Tarzender [4.5.18071
B. 1297 [4.1.1880]
=(3)
833
Suleyman
B. 1277 [12. 1. 1861]
( D. 1327 [13.7.1909]
(a)=
1310
829
Mehmed
Vamik
B. 1266 [19.4.1850]
D. 1266 [1.8.1850]
2526
=Fatma
830
Mehmed
Ziyaeddin
B. 1262 [1.12.1846]
D. 1265 [31.4.1849]
„ 831
Nureddin
B. 1268 [17.4.1851]
D. 1302 [1885]
832
Osman
Seyfeddin
D. 1271 [23.5.1855]
2527
Filisan-
1303
B. 1286 [17.7.1869] [10. 10.1885]
(2526)
1
<0
[12.5.1893] B. 12S8 [19.9.1871]
2528
= Nazi ter
(396)
1350
Alive
B. 1258 [10. 10. 1842]
D. 1260 [23.7.1844]
2529
Abdiilhalim
B. 1312 [27.9.1894]
I
2538
Nurullah Mehmed P.
D. 1257 [1841]
2539
Halil Hamid=
2595
Hadice=
1342
(2525)
2530
=Damad
Siikriye [14.11.1923] §erefeddin
(v. XLvn 1. 844) B. 1322 [18.5.1904]
860
Abdurrahim=
J2525)
.2532;
-(1) Emine Naciye
I35i
Bedihe
D. 1270 [30.10.1853]
2533 2534
Ahmed B.==Ayse
(v. l.) [1909] B. 1316 [25.10.1898]
(Eng.) ! J
(*)=
1329
2535
~Enver P.
(3)=
[15.5.1911] B. 1298 [1881]
D. 1340 [4.8.1922]
1342
[30.10.1923]
(381)
2536
-Kamil B.
1293
(2)
1352
Behice
(1)=
1276
Pasazade Hamid B. [15. 11.1876] B. 1264 [26.8.1848] [10.1859]
2540
Mustafa P.
2541
-Husnu P.
D. 1306 [20.11.1888]
D. 1293 [30.1 1.1876]
1353
Behive
B. 1256 [22.2.1841]
D. 1263 [3.6.1847]
1354
Cemile=
1274
2499
-Mahmud
B. 1259 [18.8.1843] [3.6.1858] Celaleddin P.
D. 1333 [26.2.1915]
(y.xlvi, 1331)
2553
V. A. Buyiik
Mustafa Resid P.
B. 1214 [1799]
D. 1274 [7.1.1857]
I
2554
Ah Galib P.=
1270
=(0
(382)
1355
Fatma
(2)=
25 55
Arif P.
1
2556 s
=Mehmed
B- 1245 [1829] [24.2.1854] B. 1256 [1. 11. 1840] [24.3.1859] Nuri P.
D. 1275 [14.9.1858]
D. 1300 [1883]
i
D. 1300 [1883]
1356
Fehime (A)
B. 1271 [26.1.1855]
D. 1273 [10. 11. 1856]
1357
Fehime (B)
B. 1277 [26.1.1861]
D. c . 1277 [x S6 1]
2 558
Sevyid Izzet
Hasan Ef.
B. 1242 [1827]
D. 1299 [21.3.1882]
( 3 ? 3)
V. A. Damad-
1303
Fend P. [30.4.1886]
B. 1270 [1854] |
D. 1342 [6.10.1923] *
1359
=(2) Mediha (1)=
B. 1272
[30.7.1856]
1296
2560
Seyh Necibzade
Sami P.
D. 1295 [1878]
I
2561
-Necib P.
[8.6.1879] B. 1271 [1855]
D. 1302 (7.1885]
1360
Mevhibe
B. 1256 [8.5.1840]
D. 1257 [2. 11. 1841]
1361
Mukbile
B. 1266 [22.2.1850]
D. 1269 [7.2.1853]
2563
Riza Hasan P.
D. 1294 [24.1 r. 1877]
2564
Ibrahim P.=
J382)
1358
Hadice
B. 1257 [8.1.1842]
D. c. 1257 [1842]
2565
Abbas I
(Khedive of Eg\pt, 1848)
B. 1228 [1813]
D. 1270 [13.7.1854], ass.
1277
=(2)
1362
Munir
D. 1297 [1880] [1.1861] B. 1260 [9.12.1844]
j D. 1279 [9.7.1862]
(1)=
1274
2566
-Ibrahim
[10.6,1858] Ilhami P.
B. 1252 [1836]
D. 1277 [10.9.1860]
2570 !
Verkes 1293 1363
Mehmed P. (1) — Naile
D. 1327 [4.1909] [1876] B. 1273 [n.6.1857]
(v. XLViii, 1382) D. 1299 [1882J
(382)
1364
Naime
B. 1256 [1 1. 10. 1840]
D. 1259 [4.1843]
I
1365
Neire (Nazmiye?)
B. 1257 [24.9.1841]
D. 1259 [14.1.1844]
(382)
1367
Rukive
1368
Sabxha
B. 1264 [20.4.1848]
D. 1265 [27.4.1849]
(397)
(384)
1370
Semiha
D. 1294 [1877]
1366
Refia=
1273
2491
Alahmud
B. 1257 [8.1.1842] [21.7.1857] Edhem P.
D. 1296(1879] J (v. xlvi, 1330)
1369
Samiye
B. 1261 [23*2.1845]
D. 1261 [15.4.1845]
2512 1293
Asaf Mahmud^
1372
§ahime
B. 1271 [1-3.1855]
D. 1273 [10. 11. 1856]
r
1373
Zekiye
D. 1272 [19.2.1856]
1 371
=Seniha
Celaleddin P. [5.12.1876] B. 1268 [21. 11.1851]
(v. XLVI, 1344) v
1 The dates given for marriages between the later sultans and
some of their wives are taken from the Almanack de Gotha, but
should not be taken to mean any more than that at such a date a
particular wife attained some official prominence. In some cases
the dates are prior to, in others subsequent to, the birth of the
first child.
2 Surreya says she died 1282 [1865], but this is the date given
in A.G.
3 Surreya, i. 85, w rongly gives her as a ( kadm’ of Abdulhamid I,
but corrects this, ibid. iv. 892.
4 On 397/Tirimujgan’s death, she adopted Abdulhamid II,
and later acted as his ‘Valide Sultan’.
5 Surreya says his mother was 388 Neveser, while A.G. says
389 /Nukhetseza.
6 From this point details about the second generation have been
omitted, unless they* ha\e special importance.
7 First engaged to 860/Abdurrahim, she became an instrument
of policy and was married to 25 3 5 /Enver Pa$a; see p. 89. She had
children by him and by his brother, 2536, Kamil.
8 For Enver Pasa, see the articles listed on pp. 89-90, and also
Baysun, in T.D. iii. 1155 ff.
9 Exiled to Taif with Midhat Pasa, he went mad and died there.
10 For Ferid Pasa’s marriage, see Anonymous, in T.D. ii. 762,
and Orik, in Y.T.D . 223, &c., and Inal, Sadrazamlar , xiii.
2030 ff.
Table XLVIII. ABDULAzIZ and his Family
30 373
Mahmud II=pPertevniyal, V.S.
(4<>3)
37 .
Abdulmecid (II)
B. 1285 [27.6.1868]
(401)
840
Mahmud
Celaleddin
B. 1279 [14. 11. 1862]
D. 1305 [1.9.1888]
400 2
Diirrunev=\
B. 1250 [15.3.1835]
D. 1310 [24.8.1892]
402
Gevheri=
B. 1272 [8.7.1856] }
D. 1301 [20.9.1894]
404
Mihri§ah=
4°6 4
Yildiz=y
. _ (402)
32
abdOlAzIz
B. 1245 [9.2.1830]
Ac. 1277 [25.6.1861]
Dp. 1293 [30.5*1876]'
D. 1293 [4.6.1876]
401
/^Edadil
D. 1292 [1875]
1283
403.
-Hayranidil
[21.9.1866] B. 1262 [2.11.1846]
D. 1316 [9.9.1898]
405^
=Nesrin (Ne§erik)
D. 1293 [12.6.1876]
841 5
Mehmed
Selim
B. 1283 [28.9.1866
D. 1284 [21.10. 1867]
(2581)
2582
Ahmed Tevhid
B. 1322 [2. 1 2. 1 904]
2580
Necem =
I 3 I 7 842 1319 2581
1? 1 i r o — Mehn&ed (2) — Nervaliter
B. I297 [s.i.fslo] 4 ' 12 ' " 1 S B yf ^ n [23 - 2 - I902] B- i ^° 2 [27-3.1885]
[21.9.1874]
(405)
i
843 s
Mehmed -
1367
2588
-Fatma
2691
Adile-
1340
(2581) |
r
2583
Mahmud
§evket
(2581)
$evket [3.4. 1890] Ruhnaz
B. 1289 [5.6.1872] B. 1289 [2.1.1873]
D. 1317 [22.10.1899]
I
(v. L. 1404) [4.5.1922] B. 1321 [30.7.1903]
2584
Fatma Gevheri
B. 1322 [2. 12. 1904]
(400)
2590 1302 \
Cavidan— — (1) I
B. 1286 [12.1.1870] [20.5.1885]
844 6
Yusuf
Izzed din
/ B. 1274 [11. 10.1857]
2592 1321 D. 1334 [1.2.1916], suic. '
Leman (1) (4) I
( / n 1303 ^2591
(2) —- Emine
[6.7.1886] Nazikeda
B. 1289 [30.5.1872]
B. 1305 [6.6.1888] [4.2.1904]
(2592) (2592)
2530 1342 2595
Damad - 'Hadice
1380
Emine (A)
B. 1283 [3.10.1866]
D. 1283 [21.1.1867]
(405)
1381
Emine (B) 7
2597
Ahmed §iikrii P.
1319
2598 7
-Mehmed
(3)-
1310 2593
~Tazende
B. 1290 [1873] [12.9. 1901] §erif P.
D. 1338 [30. 1. 1920] (Qavdaroglu)
B. 1291 [1874]
(4 0 5)
1 382 s 1306 2570
Esma — - 7(2) Qerkes
B. 1287 [1870] [20.4.1889] Mehmed P.
D. 1314 [7.1.1897] I (v. xlvii. 1363)
\
1383
Fatma
B. 1291 [1874]
D. c. 1291 [1874]
$erefeddin [14. n. 1923] $ukrive
(v. XLVII. 833) B. 1323 [24.2.1906]
[15. 10.1892] B. 1292 [10.10.1875]
(2592)
2596 891
Mihri^ah— (2) Omer Faruk
B. 1334 [5-6.1916] (v. LIIl)
(403)
2600
Ibrahim Dervi§ P.
2601
Ali Halid P.
1306
(400)
2603
Ismail Hakki P.
B. 1234 [1819]
D. 1314 [22.2.1897]
1385 1
=Nazima
2594
Mehmed
Nizameddin
B. 1326 [10. 12.1908]
[20.4.1889] B. 1283 [1866]
1386 10
Saliha=
1306
2604
= Ahmed
B. 1279 [10.8.1862] [20.4.1889] Ziilkufl P.
(Kurtzade)
' The fun S tory of his deposition, including the ‘fetva’, is given in Sehsuvaroglu
Aziz 82 ff. For the controversy over the manner of his death see p. 107 n 2
At first he promised for economy’s sake, to be content with one wife, but the customs
ol the baray soon prevailed; see p. 82, n. 2, and l.A . i. 57.
3 The sister of £erkes Hasan Bey; see p.’ 70, and n. i.
4 She was a sister of 429/Safinaz.
, T‘“ S h e are S' d f, es gIve " Aziz, .28, n. I, gives birth in 1862
an ^ ln i 863- Also for 843/Mehmed $evket he gives birth in 1869
Bom while his father was still only ‘Veliahd’, his birth was kept very quiet; it was
only officially announced on 1 1.7.1861, after Abdulaziz’s accession. Like his father, he
committed suicide; the long nervous illness which led up to this is described by Aksiit,
in T.D. i. 62, and by Baykal, in T.D. i. 487, &c. Typical reactions to it can be seen in
Hayder, 149.
7 See Y.T.D. i. 48.
* S e hsuvaroglu, Aziz , 128, n. 2, says she was bom in 1873, but this would make her a
twin of 1 38 1 /Emine, for which there is no evidence.
9 If the birth date is correct, then she was a posthumous child.
10 In editions prior to 1897, A.G. gets these two marriages confused with each other.
I
1384 9
Munire
B. 1294 [1877]
D. c. 1294 [1877]
Table XLIX. MURAD V and his Family
31 396
Abdulmecid I=p§evkefza, V.S.
4io J
Cenaniyar (1)=
412 4
Filizten=
414
Mevliservet=
1291
B. 1271 [21.10. 1854] [8.6.1874]
D. 1321 [9.12.1903]
33
MEHMED
MURAD V
B. 1256 [21.9.1840]
Ac. 1293 [30.5.1876]
Dp. 1293 [3I-8.I876] 1
D. 1322 [29.8. 1 904] 2 3 4
416
Rezan=
1294
B. 1276 [28.3.1860] [2.11.1877]
D. 1328 [31.3.1910]
2607
Calefem
1308
1273 4 n
— = Eleru (Mevhibe ?)
[2.1.1857] B. 1251 [6.8.1835]
4i3 4 .
— Gevheri
2605 /S.
1275
[4.2.1859]
415
=Reftaridil
417
=§ahcan (§ayan?)
B. 1269 [4.1.1853]
D. 1286 [5.2.1869]
418 5
\=(i) Teranidil
B. 1289 [19.8.1872] [15.4.1891]
1305
=(4)
2609
Gutter:
B. 1283 [19.4.1867] [10.12. 1887]
D. 1319 [29.3.1902]
-(3)
261 r
Tevhider
1301
B. 1280 [25. 1. 1864] [27.2.1884]
D. 1311 [1.4.1894]
2613
Mehmed Abbas
Halim P.
B. 1284 [1867]
I
2614
Nabila Kerime=
=(2)
(415)
(416)
(416)
1
85° 1
( 2608
2620
Mehmed j
(?)— Dilber^an
Karacehennem
Selaheddin !
Faik B.
1277 [2.
2.1861]
1296 2610
j
1325 2621
1333 [29-4.1915]
(1) Naziknaz
851
8 =
\2
1390
t39i
1
l [7.7.1879] B. 1277 [24.12.1860]
Seyfeddin
Suleyman
Aliye
Fatma—
Refik B.
1338
B. 1289 [1872]
D. young
B. 1283 [1866]
D. young
(414)
B. 1296 [1879]-
D. young
B. 1296 [19.6.1879] [29.7.1907]
I
(417)
2624
Mahmud B.
K2607)
(2610)
(2611)
N.R. |
1328 1392 6 1319
- -- =(2) Fehime (i). ■ — -
[5.6.1910] B. 1292 [12.9. 1901]
[4.7.1875] (Div.)
2623
(2) Ali Galib P. (1)=
(Div.)
-(1)
2612
=Osman Fuad P.
B. 1315 [15.3.1898] [26.2.1920] B. 1312 [24.2.1895]
2615
Behiye=
1328
2616
smail Hakki
B. 1298 [20.9.1881] [17.2. 1910] (Hafiz) P.
D. 1333 [12.2. 1915]
1327
2617
Rukiyer
2618
§erif Ali Hayder P.
B. 1282 [1866]
1328 2619
=Emir $erif
2628
Vasif P.=
1319
B. 1302 [30.5.1885] [17. 2. 1910] Abdulmecid
B. c. 1307 [1889]
[12. 9. 1901]
(Div.)
=(2)
I393 7
Hadice (3)=
B. 1287 [1. 5.1909]
[4.5.1870] |
2626
Hayreddin B.
2627
=Rauf B.
1 For his deposition, the reality of his insanity and the attempts to replace him on the
throne, see pp. 29 and 69 ff., and the series of articles by Uzun^ar^ih there listed.
2 From the time of his deposition to his death Murad V lived in continual fear of
poisoning — see Uzun^ar^ih, in Belleten , 30.335. In the detailed article on the illness and
death of Murad — in Belleten , 38.317 ff.—Uzun^ar^ih twice (pp. 347 and 353) wrongly
gives the date of death as 17 Cemaz. ii. 1322 [28.8.1905].
3 She later married a certain Husnu Bey, Berber-ba^i.
4 A favourite with Murad V after his deposition, see Uzun^arsih, in Belleten , 29.81. So
also was 413/Gevheri.
5 In Belleten , 30.340, she is given as attached to the harem of Abdiiiaziz, while ibid.
252, n. 3, she is attached to Murad V’s. Later she left the harem and married a certain
Nuri Bey.
6 Her first marriage was dissolved on 4.11.1908.
7 Hadice was divorced from her first husband, as a result of a scandal with 2690 /
Mehmed Kemaleddin, c. 1900 — see Uzun^ar^ili. in Belleten , 38.344. There is no record
of this marriage between Hadice and Ali Galib in A.G. y but her subsequent marriages
and his to 1392/ Fehime are given in detail.
Table L. ABDULHAMID II and his Family
420
Bedrifelek-
1285
* 31 . . 3 97 2
AbdOlmecid I =pT lrimujgan
I
34 . / 1318
B. 1267 [4.1.1851] [15. 1 1. 1868]
1291
422
Biydar=
B. 1274 [5.5-1858] [2.9.1875]
L>. 1336 [13. 1. 1918]
424
Emsahnur^
1303
B. 1282 [2.1.1866] [20.11. 1885]
426 1303
Mii^fika-
B. 1284 [10. 1 2. 1 867] [12.1.1886]
428 1310
Peyveste Osman -■=— - -
B. 1290 [10.5.1873] [24.1.1893]
1322
„ . 430
Saliha Naciye -
D- 1342 [4. 12. 1 923] [4.1 1. 1 904]/
ABDOLHAMtD II
(Bedros, Kanli)
B. 1258 [22.9.1842]
Ac. 1293 [31.8.1876]
Dp. 1327 [27.4.1909] 1
D. 1336 [10.2.1918]
2613
Mehmed Abbas
Halim P.
(v. xlix, 850)
i
2630
Nabila Emine (1)
1337
(428)
860 5 1327 2532
=(2) Abdurrahim (1) — — (1) Emine
421
-Behice
[10.5. 1900] B. 1299 [10.10.1882]
1 300 423
- ~ - — Dilpesend
[10.4. 1883] B. 1281 [16.1.1865]
D. 1321 [5. 10.1903]
1302
425 3
=Mezide
[2.1.1885] B. 1284 [3.3.1869]
D. 1326 [12. 12.1908]
427
=Nazikeda
4 2 9 4
=Safinaz
1308
43i
- Sazkar
[3 1. 8. 1 890] B. 1290 [8.5.1873]
2633
Mustafa
§erif B.
v - / - — Jiuuuuaiiuu ^ 1 J — I j C/Hl
I 3 I 7 [1.6. 1899] [4.6. 1919] B. 1312 [14.8.1894] [1909] Naciye
1 /ry w J
2634
Hadice -
N.R.
*33 1
(2)
(Div.)
263 1 6
Mihrimah
Sel^uk
B. 1338 [14.4.1920]
(Eng.) (v. XL vii. 833)
(42i)
(420)
(430)
Macide[i.6.i9i3]
B. 1317 [14.9.1899]
N.R.
2636 1325
Mihriban - - - (1)
B. 1307 [18.5.1890] [6.6.1907]
(421)
(422)
861
Abdulkadir (3):
N.R.
!334
2635
-Mesiyet
2638
Fa^riye^
N.R.
1337
B. 1295 [16.1.1878] [5.2.1916] Fatma
B. 1326 [14.4.1908]
(425)
862
= Ahmed
Andelib [5.5.1919] Nureddin
B. 1320 [8.8.1902] B. 1319 [22.6.1901]
863
Ahmed
Nuri
B. 1295 [11.2.1878]
D. 1321 [13. 10.1903]
864’
Mehmed
Abid
B. 1323 [17-9-1905]
865
Mehmed
Bedreddin
B. 1319 [22.6.1901]
D. Young
2640
Hidayet-
1326
264 1 8
Aliye (1)
B. 1310 [13. 10.1892] [7.6.1909!
(Div.) -
=\i) ,
[1908] [ 866
Mehmed
1327 ( Burhaneddin
=(2) I B. 1303 [19.12. 1885]
(420)
2672
Mer^em
J
Abaza
1
|
1
2673 1303
867’
Tiryal
(1) Mehmed
B. 1286 [10. 1 2. 1 870] [4.6.1886]
Selim
D. 1322 [27.12.1904]
B. 1286 [11.1
(426)
(2)
1323
2674
: Nilufer
(3)=
[30.6.1905] B. 1304 [r. 5. 1887]
1328
2675
- Pervin
(423)
1402
Hadice
D. young
[29.3.1910] B. 1311 [6.6.1894]
(423)
2677
Fahreddin B.
2678 1328 1401 10 1339
Beyrutlu===(i) Ay$e (2)===
Ahmed Nami B. [9.8. 1910] B. 1305 [4.4.1921]
B. 1290 [1873] (Div.) [1. 11. 1887]
2679
Rauf P.
!
2680
: Mehmed All B.
i
2685
V. A. Abdurrahman
Nureddin P. (Haci)
B. 1251 [4-1836]
D. 1330 [7.8.1912]
2686
Arif Hikmet P.
(422)
2687
Gazi Nuri Osman P.
B. 1248 [1832]
D. 1317 [5.4.1900]
2694
Ahmed
Eyiib P.
B. 1249 [1833]
D. 1311 [1893]
I
2695 1330
Ali Fuad B.=
(43i)
1405
: Ref ia
(430)
1406
Samiye
B. 1325 [16.1.1908]
D. 1327 [27. 1. 1909]
1332 . . J4?3 13 J 9 2688
- — (2) Naile (1)- — — Cemaleddin B.
[27.2.1905] B. 1301 [1901]
[9.2.1884] (Eng.)
(424) (427)
2690 11
Mehmed::
1315 , v . 1325 2490
„ t Naime (2)== Celaleddin P.
Kemaleddin B. [17.3.1898] B. 1293 [11.7.1907] (v. xlvi. 1330)
(Div.) [5-8.1876]
2691
Adder
1340
2583
-Mahmud
[4.5.1922] §evket
(v. XL Viii. 842)
[3.1912] B. 1308 [15.6.1891]
2697 1328
Fahir B.^
1408 13
Ulviye
B. c. 1281 [1864]
D. 1287 [29.1 1.1870]
2698
Ali Namik
2689
Ali 1306
Nureddin P. - - —
(420)
1409
-Zekiye
[20.4.1889] B. 1287 [12. 1. 1871]
1407 12 1327 2699
Fuad B.
- -- =(2) §adiye (i)
D. 1341 [27.9.1922] [2. 12.1910] B. 1304 [1909]
[30.12.1886] (Eng.)
His deposition and death are discussed in an important article by
Uzunyar^ih, in Belleten, 40. 705; the correspondence of dates is not,
however, always accurate. See $ehsovaroglu. in vi. 3628, &c.
His mother died in 1853 and he was adopted by 390 Perestu, and also
befriended by 373/Pertevniyal Valide Sultan.
3 In unusual circumstances she came from the harem of Murad V;
see §ehsuvaroglu, Aziz , 52, n. 1.
4 Safinaz, a sister of 406/Yildiz, was at first in the harem of Ab-
diilaziz.
5 His engagement to Emine Naciye came to an end when she married
2535/Enver Pa?a; his marriage to the Nabila Emine ended in a divorce
on 26.9.1923.
6 On 7.10.1940 Mihrimah Selkirk married the Emir Naif of Trans*
Jordan.
7 He was the youngest son of Abdulhamid II, and the favourite of
his days in retirement; see $akir, in R.T.M. 1. 562, &c. On 12.1.1936 he
married Seniye, sister of King Zogo of Albania.
She was divorced on 10. 11. 1919. On 1334 [2.4.1920] she married
Mehmed Cavit Bey, one of the leaders of the l lttihad ve Terakki Cemi*
yeti’ and of the Republic in its early days. However, he was executed
on 1345 [12.9.1926] for complicity in a plot against Mustafa Kemal
(Atatiirk).
x 9 He Nvas much disliked by his father; see Orik, in T.D. lii. 970.
She was divorced from Ahmed Nami on 10. 2. 1921.
He had to divorce Naime, on account of the scandal with im-i
Hadice; see Table XLIX, n. 7.
13 Her engagement to Fuad Bey was broken off because Abdulhamid II
had been deposed meanwhile.
She was burned to death while playing with some matches.
Table LI. MEHMED V and his Family
>
sl&iss-
3*5 &§
i.a ^ c
^
I ! r>
H' - ^
d~£S l£
\ o
o « £ J
ft-S 00 ^
s'q Er*l®s
Rj££ &§”
00 £?
c «r 5
’s’SvcJ'q
o in « u
-£| 1 * 2 .
175
Table LII. MEHMED VI and his Family
M 2 «
^ §■ .
-Xffl
<v #
'to
N ;£*:£ £
* 2 ^ XqO
^ 3 « M
2c o .
‘fa
O >
za
O' >
2&
«3
0
>1
w 0 O 2 *
II — 'SSS « <
a
'* N ';
- j ^ o ;
'O O' M
N _
N-~
C** ^
« £
p?
R-sl
o
<o
cj C> •
k<QQ
« c-b -g
&gj* 0 °
**8 3
Z 7
0°Z<>
o’
to > '
»
£ «
- r- 1 »-4 i^.~
Z g «
^>30
6
O >*£ S O
'Sg-gi
wS g,
+J X)
3 «
CO ^
«
c
c 3
s
<U
X!
X
a o
c 3 «
- o
<u x
«>•>
.2 ^
fcl .of
« JtJ
£ 5
0 ) £
3 g-
w OS |
‘■5 c-
o> .
c
w o 2
2* « x
. tj w
m c x
• £ <D
O'
s ^
?£
E?
0
o ^
_ 5
■g «-5
8 «5
O *r*
► u b
x 3 a [
w >» o
03 08 X „
* K §.'
*' -« 3
X £
<D
« u
5 4:10
v .2
X ^
co <
>.
X)
<
S
M o T **
. „ _c O'
h X t, • <
e C « 3 f
5 C 3 X Q .
2 ffl
03
c
0
X
0
£
X
6
CO
0
X
c
a
OJ
sj
2>
■w
0)
X
03
c
00 Q
o w
3
X
sT
03
£3
O
c
0
£
X
>,
OS
c
03
03
03
O
d
«
X
03
03
<u
X
£
^ 3 “
G
i >.
CO
X
m
X
c
X
0
X
0
X
^3d
0
_>»
03
c « 2 «x r
c3 0 _, y Ji
~ **. C S^’S
« Si 04 ,
« £ X OT -
■g § 23 el
§ ° x <*- X £
a
<U
X
m > o ® .2 «
| o g |
X CO -M X u
;a e *o x
u r; « O
■ > X G X
Sfi
176
Table LI 1 1. ABDULMEClD (II) and his Family
C .2 u ^3
§ E
• ^ >. — « £
o Z
f ? < ^ S S 5
> fl *S 'f N <
tJ « « g 2 £
fi II* 5 » =3
£
•Sl 6 <-g j|
-2 « .a ti | Z
f 6 *§ 8 . c
gg-SM^ “■
M-Ss-sl £
Si f .S3 S I ®
^ Q -a £ — o 5
x c S £ > e
2 S 3
.5 « b« m *jC e -g
n ° « c w •« t3
,u q in c m n
!tS *c J>
— * -C* CQ *® —— o>
« . O p T3 —
£ « O | c» £
» J? H U 2 ^
O O' o »-. o Q «
fcrs“°o£
« 2£ a S ” E
. M-t o g .32 4>
O f" -C 3 -m
n N x; ** £P *5 J2
« 4) 3 *3
O c 5P-rt 3 _C
CO JC rt _3 g -c
-O S-g-g-°.a3
4> w N rt g C*
N « 2 s
< C CO 00
! •IS'-S
3 1§1
4 * 0 W
5 N 2 u *0
1 ?~j* s
! M -T3 ♦* C
4 1 ^ fe
* P* 4> 8j
3 C^u C
> o *c —
' V c * T3
) y o u
; (£ .5 ST5
: o M m «-•
> O D. 3 »
S.s-S^-S
; *g .2 £ 8
> £ J5 o «
J i —
2 c C £
: So-g-g
• -o - :2 S
5707
177
N
Table LIY. ALLIANCES WITH CANDARO GULLARI
candaroGullari
1555 .
Celaleddin
Bayezid Kotiirum
I
1690
Mubarizzeddin
Isfendiyar
1691
Ibrahim 11=
M043)
1693
Kizil Ahmed
1556
Suleyman 11=
73 /D.=
100
Hadice (1)=
(1043)
" l
1692
Ismaih
(1051)
r
1736
Yahya
(J051)
!735
Hasan=
1694
Mehmed Mirza=
OSMANLILAR
2
Orhan
514
Suleyman
l
1551
=Sultan
=MlJRAD I
4
BAYEZiD
Mehmed I
1043
=Sel9uk (B)
.1
r (i>=
j 695
Kasim <
Kavameddin
l (2)=
=Murad II
=io52/D,
==io4 4 /D.
( 1 00 ) _ ( 100)
I
561
Ahmed (B)
Mehmed II
=io5i/D.
r
565 /s.
1995 1994
§emsi Ahmed Mustafa
1996
Mahmud
i
Kizil Ahmedliler
1
=io63/D.
r~ ■
-1080/D.
8
BaYEZHD II
I
178
Table LV. ALLIANCES WITH THE COMNENES
COMNENES
Alexius IV-r-Theodora
Cantacuzenus
1721 1720
Irene=r=George
Brankovich
103
Mara=:
1742 1743
David=pHelena
I Cantacuzenus
hi
Anna (A) (1) ^
1753
Dorino I
Gattilusio
I i23/D.=
119
Alexander— (1) Maria (2) = - >
OSMANLILAR
5
Mehmed I
6
Murad II
7
Mehmed II
1
179
Table LVI. ALLIANCES WITH DULKADIRLILAR
DULKADIRLILAR OSMANLILAR
Zeyneddin
Karaca
Halil Kara
Nasreddin
Mehmed
1755
Suleyman
1900
Alaeddevlet
Bozkurt
1680
$aban Suli
4
Bayezid I
9 °
Emine
:Mehmed I
I (9o)
6
Murad II
120
(Miikrime)
7
=Mehmed II
130
Ay§e
8
:BaYEZID II
I (130)
9
Selim I
I
I
Table LVII. ALLIANCES WITH KARAMANOGULLARI
karamanoGullari osmanlilar
HiisnU^ah- = — = = ' 1 - BAYEzjp II
Table LVIII. ALLIANCES WITH KRIM HANLARI
KRlM HANLARI
OSMANLILAR
i95o
Menkili
Giray
2065
Saadet 1 =
(1098)
2066
Ahmed
140
Ay§e
( 0 =
(*)=
585
=Mehmed
1098/D.
8
BayezId 11
9
:Selim I
Table LIX. ALLIANCES WITH KOPRULULER
kOprUlOler
Mehmed
Koprvilu
2345 2346
Oruc=j=Abide
2360 | 2347
Fazil Mustafa D.=(i) Kara Mustafa (2)-
2348
Maktulzade
Ali=
2361
Nu’man-
237 1
Bayezid
2372
Zahide
OSMANLILAR
19
Mehmed IV
1203
rKu^uk
1226
=(1) Safiye
22
Mustafa II
1220
=(1) Ay§e
Table LX. ALLIANCES WITH MEMLOKLER
memlOkler osmanlilar
4
Bayezid I
540
Suleyman
1644
Orhan
1647
E§ref Bars bay:
<*>\
1646
Hundi
1648
Zahir gakmak - - (2) )
1649
Barsbay Bica$i=: — - =^3 ) )
1780
Seyfeddin
Kaytbay
1
1781
Nasir Mehmed
570
Cem
A) 1779/0.
5
Mehmed I
I
6
Murad II
1
7
Mehmed II
Table LXI. ALLIANCES WITH THE PALEOLOGI
PALEOLOGI
Andronicus III Anna
i53i
John VI 1532
Cantacuzenus =j=Irene
1540 1541
John V=j=Helena
_ 6 3
Theodora (A)=
1610
Louis 1611
Fadrique =j=Helena
87 /D
1542
Irenes
72 /D.=
85
Maria (3)=
1576/D,:
1640
John 1641
Theodore I.=r=D. (of Nerio I
(Morea) Acciajuoli)
1642/0.=
Manuel II
i 75 i 1750
Zoe As an ^ Demetrius
(Morea)
117
Helen=
OSMANLILAR
Osman I
1
2
=Orhan
510
=HaIil
3
-Murad I
522
=Yakub
T, 4 •
=Bayezid I
540
-Suleyman
Mehmed I
Murad II
=Mehmed II
i
184
Table LXII. ALLIANCES WITH SAFEVlLER
SAFEVlLER OSMANLILAR
185
Table LXIII. ALLIANCES WITH THE SERBIANS
SERBIANS
OSMANLILAR
Stephen Urosh III
Dechanski
I
1535 1536
Stephen Urosh IV=Helena
Dushan Shishman
I ( 1536 )
64
Theodora (B)=
1590 1591
Lazar I=Militsa
Grebelyanovich Bulco
81
Despina=
(Maria, Olivera)
D.~Vuk
Brankovich
1721 1720
Irene=pGeorge
Comnenus
103
Marar
Osman
2
=Orhan
Murad I
4
=Bayezid I
Mehmed I
= Murad II
S
PRINTED IN
GREAT BRITAIN
AT THE
UNIVERSITY PRESS
OXFORD
BY
CHARLES BATEY
PRINTER
TO THE
UNIVERSITY
catalogued.
i
CENTRAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL LIBRARY ,
NEW DELHI
Catalogue No.949.6Ald - 15370.
Author — ^.Verson, &.D.
J
Title — wtr^ct’-ri- cf the Cttcw»n
«ly rusty .
Eorrower No.
Date of Issue
Date of Return
“A book that is shut is but a block
A Jr ' •
~ ' to
if
^AE°tO G/ _
GOVT. OF INDIA
Department o£ Archaeology - -*%pr
§ '
NEW DELHI.
V
■ Ct;
Please help us to keep the hook
clean and moving.
S# B*» ?4®* It. HtUfl*
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11